# Rootless Triads in Beethoven Sonata, What?



## caters

Okay, I came across a bit of a wrinkle in the paper as I analyzed the third movement of Beethoven's Sonata Pathetique. It has to do with this passage:









For those of you wanting bar numbers, those are bars 92-94 of the third movement

The previous passage which had suspensions was very easy for me to analyze. Here is how I analyzed that passage:









Again, for those wanting bar numbers, those are bars 88-90 of the third movement.

Now, it looks as though those harmonies are repeated in bars 92-94. Problem is, in bars 92-94, I see no roots except for the first harmony which is Ab major. This leads to a bit of a paradox. It looks like the harmonies are repeated, but there are no roots which means that it can't be the same harmonies, because there is no such thing as a chord without a root.

Okay, so what if I do analyze it differently? Here is what I get:









As you can see, the first 2 chords are conventional. But then there is a progression from the minor dominant of the mediant to the mediant. Now that is weird, even for Beethoven. I have seen the minor dominant being used a few times in the sonata, but that's just it, the minor dominant of the tonic, not the minor dominant of the mediant. I have even seen Beethoven use this minor dominant when he is in a major key. But it is still unusual to have the minor dominant of the mediant appear right after the subdominant of the tonic.

That is, if I analyze it differently to avoid the root paradox. What if I don't do that and I take it head on? Here is what it would be analyzed as if I took the root paradox head on:









Now that looks just like the previous suspension passage. But I don't see a Bb to confirm ii, an Eb to confirm V, or worse yet, an Ab to confirm I in the last harmony. The Bb, Eb, and Ab are the roots of their respective harmonies and not having the root leads to the paradox of looking like the same harmony, but impossible to be the same harmony.

So how should I analyze this passage? Should I take the root paradox head on and just ignore the missing root notes? Or should I go with the unconventional v/iii to iii motion? Or should I do neither? If neither, what should I do?


----------



## Bwv 1080

Ignore the roots and just listen to it in context.


----------



## caters

Bwv 1080 said:


> Ignore the roots and just listen to it in context.


Well I ignored the missing roots and just listened to the C section of the third movement of the sonata. And guess what, I heard almost the same counterpoint happening 3 times(first without suspensions, second with suspensions in the bass, and third with suspensions in the treble) and because the roots were already established previously, both when he starts in first species and when he starts to add momentum to the counterpoint, in context, the fact that Beethoven omits the roots on his third go round with the counterpoint doesn't really change much harmonically speaking. Most of this harmonic analysis, I have been able to do via visual alone, but this contrapuntal part of the sonata must be where my ears are absolutely critical for me to decipher the harmony correctly.


----------



## EdwardBast

The answer to your questions about the passages you quoted is in the first statement of the pattern, mm. 79-82. How did you analyze these measures?:









Did you find any missing roots there? After you have this passage analyzed, the rest isn't so mysterious.


----------



## EdwardBast

caters said:


> So how should I analyze this passage? Should I take the root paradox head on and just ignore the missing root notes? Or should I go with the unconventional v/iii to iii motion? Or should I do neither? If neither, what should I do?


There is no root paradox, the chord before iii is just vii7. What should you do?: Don't quote grammatically incomplete parts of longer phrases and don't try to analyze them in isolation. You need to analyze at least four measures to make any sense of this passage. The fact that you think any of these two measure fragments can be analyzed without reference to the whole phrase indicates that you are missing something basic in your understanding of how to do analysis.


----------



## millionrainbows

This is the danger of analyzing with the eyes and brain instead of the ears and brain.


----------



## millionrainbows

.........A dim...Db aug........G7...........C maj 7.......C sus...


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> .........A dim...Db aug........G7...........C maj 7.......C sus...


Very funny..... 
However, the first chord is surely Amin, the second Dbmaj7 , the 3rd and 4th..correct, well done MR. The last is an incomplete F maj7, or perhaps a secret Dmin9th, the d hiding in another bar, something I know a bit about.

BTW this analysis assumes a bass and treble clef, if not then we are both wrong. Any takers for analysis in 2 different C clefs?


----------



## EdwardBast

Mike and Millions: You've been misled. The OP omitted the key signature (three flats).  The underlying progression, quoted in #4 as Beethoven wrote it, is a relatively simple progression by descending fifths in the key of A-flat:

I-IV-vii-iii-vi-V/V-V

The rhythmically displaced notes becoming 7ths in the passages you guys addressed (which are later resolved by step) don't alter the underlying progression.


----------



## mikeh375

Yeah, I was dicking around, riffing off MR's post, I guess MR was too. Funnily enough, I only learnt this sonata for the first time earlier this year and don't worry, I did play it in 3 flats... I should have also mentioned an assumption of the key of Cmajor in my 'analyse what you see in the example' idiocy....I still get touched by a cycle of 5ths with 7ths no matter how often they are used, even Vivaldi hasn't dampened my enthusiasm for them.


----------



## EdwardBast

mikeh375 said:


> Yeah, I was dicking around, riffing of MR's post, I guess MR was too. Funnily enough, I only learnt this sonata for the first time earlier this year and don't worry, I did play it in 3 flats... I should have also mentioned an assumption of the key of Cmajor in my 'analyse what you see in the example' idiocy....I still get touched by a cycle of 5ths with 7ths no matter how often they are used, even Vivaldi hasn't dampened my enthusiasm for them.


Got it. Maybe one of us should have mentioned the missing signature explicitly.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Got it. Maybe one of us should have mentioned the missing signature explicitly.


...or maybe the mysterious 'caters' should have bothered to post it correctly. My post was a joke, anyway, so the key doesn't matter.

To respond to Ed, I'm not 'misled' because of my joking reply to caters' negligence.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> ...or maybe the mysterious 'caters' should have bothered to post it correctly. My post was a joke, anyway, so the key doesn't matter.
> 
> To respond to Ed, I'm not 'misled' because of my joking reply to caters' negligence.


Yes. I should have caught the sarcasm in your and Mike's analysis. In retrospect it's obvious.


----------



## millionrainbows

Anything can be analyzed any way, if there is no key specified. Each note has 12 possibilities. Doesn't it?


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> Anything can be analyzed any way, if there is no key specified. Each note has 12 possibilities. Doesn't it?


Not really, even if we're considering only the two measure fragments quoted by Caters. It is obviously a CP period work. Knowing this, the sequence by 5ths and the single D-flat are enough to narrow the options. And if we see the whole four measure passage I quoted in #4, arriving at the original key signature should be easy. The D-flats alone would be enough to specify it for people with the right knowledge and training.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Not really, even if we're considering only the two measure fragments quoted by Caters. It is obviously a CP period work. Knowing this, the sequence by 5ths and the single D-flat are enough to narrow the options. And if we see the whole four measure passage I quoted in #4, arriving at the original key signature should be easy. The D-flats alone would be enough to specify it for people with the right knowledge and training.


Yes, with lots of academic training. Bor-ring!


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, with lots of academic training. Bor-ring!


Naah, MR not boring at all, essential skills that contribute to and edify the musicians outlook....


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, with lots of academic training. Bor-ring!


Not all that much in this case. The essential thing is to realize is that in a mostly diatonic progression by 5ths, those Dbs imply the other three.


----------



## millionrainbows

If in doubt, convert to diatonic.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> If in doubt, convert to diatonic.


Meaning? Who has converted what?


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Meaning? Who has converted what?


You converted my statement about chromaticism to a diatonic interpretation, sticking to the same boring topic, instead of reacting spontaneously, like an improvisor.




mikeh375 said:


> Naah, MR not boring at all, essential skills that contribute to and edify the musicians outlook....




You guys go ahead and analyze the sloppily posted example with no clefs or key signature, then.

Hone your 'skills' on that stuff. I'll speculate on chromaticism.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> You converted my statement about chromaticism to a diatonic interpretation, sticking to the same boring topic, instead of reacting spontaneously, like an improvisor.


You didn't write a statement about chromaticism. You wrote a statement about "anything," which includes the diatonic (except for one secondary dominant) passage that's the subject of the thread:

"Anything can be analyzed any way, if there is no key specified. Each note has 12 possibilities. Doesn't it?"

This is incorrect, both as a statement about the specific passage from Beethoven and as a general statement about tonal music, diatonic or chromatic.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> You guys go ahead and analyze the sloppily posted example with no clefs or key signature, then.
> 
> Hone your 'skills' on that stuff. I'll speculate on chromaticism.[/FONT]


You started the joking right? And there's me thinking we where having a bit of fun - ah well. MR, I mastered the principles and use of chromaticism many years ago and use it in my own way everyday in my writing, so I'll skip the speculation and just do instead, but do have fun......oh and I can play the work that the music in question belongs to - which btw, has been explained correctly by Edward...fwiw.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> "MR: Anything can be analyzed any way, if there is no key specified. Each note has 12 possibilities. Doesn't it?"
> 
> This is incorrect, both as a statement about the specific passage from Beethoven and as a general statement about tonal music, diatonic or chromatic.


As a possibility, it is correct. It may not conform with common practice, but that's bor-ing.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> You started the joking right? And there's me thinking we where having a bit of fun - ah well. MR, I mastered the principles and use of chromaticism many years ago and use it in my own way everyday in my writing, so I'll skip the speculation and just do instead, but do have fun......oh and I can play the work that the music in question belongs to - which btw, has been explained correctly by Edward...fwiw.


I'm impressed. Correct explanations seem to be everywhere these days...


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> As a possibility, it is correct. It may not conform with common practice, but that's bor-ing.


Why do you continue to participate in a thread about a problem in common practice harmony if you find the subject boring? You've managed to post nine times - more than a third of the posts in the thread - without making any substantive contribution to the discussion beyond your claim that "anything can be analyzed anyway," which is vacuous and off topic.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Why do you continue to participate in a thread about a problem in common practice harmony if you find the subject boring? You've managed to post nine times - more than a third of the posts in the thread - without making any substantive contribution to the discussion beyond your claim that "anything can be analyzed anyway," which is vacuous and off topic.


The initial post is flawed; there are no clefs, and no key signature. That invalidates the example as a covert attempt to bait others into incorrect replies, which can subsequently be invalidated.

Therefore, since there is no key specified, every pitch can have 12 possible "functions" or meanings, as members of a chord, or as a root station.

This is not my doing; this is the original poster's foible.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> The initial post is flawed; there are no clefs, and no key signature. That invalidates the example as *a covert attempt to bait others into incorrect replies*, which can subsequently be invalidated.
> 
> Therefore, since there is no key specified, every pitch can have 12 possible "functions" or meanings, as members of a chord, or as a root station.
> 
> This is not my doing; this is the original poster's foible.


Although one hopes she will be more careful with her future screen grabs, it's ridiculous to suggest Caters was baiting anyone. Why? Because it's the freaking Pathetique Sonata, one of the best known works in the piano rep! She likely assumed anyone answering her would already be familiar with it - if she even noticed the absence of signature and clefs.


----------



## Woodduck

For anyone who doesn't know that the "Pathetique" is in Ab, and who wasn't tipped off by the Db in the example, any momentary confusion was promptly cleared up by EdwardBast in posts #4 and #9. It appeared that by post #12 all confusion was dispelled. 

Easy theory question. Smiles all around. Right?

So what the hell is going on now, with complaints about "no key specified," accusations of "covert" actions, "baiting," and whatnot?


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> For anyone who doesn't know that the "Pathetique" is in Ab, and who wasn't tipped off by the Db in the example, any momentary confusion was promptly cleared up by EdwardBast in posts #4 and #9. It appeared that by post #12 all confusion was dispelled.
> 
> Easy theory question. Smiles all around. Right?
> 
> So what the hell is going on now, with complaints about "no key specified," accusations of "covert" actions, "baiting," and whatnot?


The sonata as a whole is in C minor. The passage in question is in Ab.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> The sonata as a whole is in C minor. The passage in question is in Ab.


You're right. Thanks. Memory slip.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Although one hopes she will be more careful with her future screen grabs, it's ridiculous to suggest Caters was baiting anyone.


I did not specify that Caters was baiting anyone; _the post itself became 'bait'_ without intent, since it was flawed information. On a forum like this, misinformation attracts a lot of 'right-fighters' and such.



> Why? Because it's the freaking Pathetique Sonata, one of the best known works in the piano rep! She likely assumed anyone answering her would already be familiar with it - if she even noticed the absence of signature and clefs.


That's a very noble and convincing response. Why don't you ever defend _my_ ridiculous posts?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> For anyone who doesn't know that the "Pathetique" is in Ab, and who wasn't tipped off by the Db in the example, any momentary confusion was promptly cleared up by EdwardBast in posts #4 and #9. It appeared that by post #12 all confusion was dispelled.
> 
> Easy theory question. Smiles all around. Right?
> 
> So what the hell is going on now, with complaints about "no key specified," accusations of "covert" actions, "baiting," and whatnot?


Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I didn't follow the convoluted logic of this brilliant exposition. How does that go?

Okay, review time: posts 4 and 9...

Post #4 is confusing, as it might lead us to believe that the composition is in Ab (as does post #9, as well as your post above) which you subsequently admitted to "not remembering."

Post #9 is what EdwardBast lives for on this forum: pointing out other members' "mistakes:"



EdwardBast said:


> Mike and Millions: You've been misled. The OP omitted the key signature (three flats).


As you can see, even EdwardBast admits that this is a "misleading" post, as I suspected.


----------



## mikeh375

OMG,
MR, I really thought you where joking in post 7, hence my post 8. Did you see Edward's post 4 before your post 7? Where you joking? I hope so, because you now look as though you are picking a fight using pedantry tactics (the 'what you see' analysis sans clefs and signature- the basis of my joke too). Post 4 is not confusing period. Caters is not misleading anyone in the OP and reasonably assumed that people who respond would know the piece anyway, given its stature. This really is is an open and closed, simple thing and the only successful misleading achieved (unintentionally I might add), was by my jokey post 8 and your presumed jokey(?) post 7 tricking Edward.
Why on earth prolong this? There is nothing here even for your particular slant on things...CP theory wins, arguing against it does you no favours.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Caters is not misleading anyone in the OP and reasonably assumed that people who respond would know the piece anyway, given its stature.


I never said Caters was intentionally baiting; if anything, it could be called "negligence," since _the post itself became the "bait"_ by its lack of info.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Post 4 is not confusing period.


_Yes it is confusing, _since it depicts a passage with a key signature of Ab. This is the very image that caused Woodduck to make his mistake, when he "forgot" that the sonata is really in C minor.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> This really is is an open and closed, simple thing and the only successful misleading achieved (unintentionally I might add), was by my jokey post 8 and your presumed jokey(?) post 7 tricking Edward.
> Why on earth prolong this? There is nothing here even for your particular slant on things...CP theory wins, arguing against it does you no favours.


Just the facts, ma'am. Lighten up.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> The initial post is flawed; there are no clefs, and no key signature. That invalidates the example as *a covert attempt to bait others* into incorrect replies, which can subsequently be invalidated.





> *I never said Caters was intentionally baiting*; if anything, it could be called *"negligence,"* since *the post itself became the "bait"* by its lack of info.


"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."


----------



## millionrainbows

Read it carefully, Woodduck:

_That invalidates *the example* as _a covert attempt to bait others into incorrect replies...

It was negligence, which is a _passive_ form of baiting, which hides any intent which might (or might not) have existed. It simply leaves out information, which attracts "victims" and then "right-fighters."

It's like a person sitting down in a narrow hallway with their legs stretched out; someone is likely to trip, but the person was not intentionally doing this, they were only negligent. This is called "bad karma by omission."



Woodduck said:


> "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."


Well, if you would make a greater effort to empathise with what people are trying to say, instead of nit-picking and invalidating, then maybe it would faciltate further progress in this fascinating thread.


----------



## millionrainbows

...................


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Read it carefully, Woodduck:
> 
> _That invalidates *the example* as _a covert attempt to bait others into incorrect replies...
> 
> It was negligence, which is a _passive_ form of baiting, which hides any intent which might (or might not) have existed. It simply leaves out information, which attracts "victims" and then "right-fighters."
> 
> It's like a person sitting down in a narrow hallway with their legs stretched out; someone is likely to trip, but the person was not intentionally doing this, they were only negligent. This is called "bad karma by omission."


Read your own words carefully. No one calls anything a "covert attempt" without implying intention, and there is no such thing as "passive baiting."


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Well, if you would make a greater effort to empathise with what people are trying to say, instead of nit-picking and invalidating, then maybe it would faciltate further progress in this fascinating thread.


This is not a "fascinating thread" - it's a simple music theory question, quickly answered - unless the fascination is in watching you contort yourself into a pretzel trying to rationalize an unfair accusation of "attempted covert passive baiting."


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Read your own words carefully. No one calls anything a "covert attempt" without implying intention, and there is no such thing as "passive baiting."


Well, you have to really scrutinize my off-hand comment, if you want to make it seem I am culpable of "accusing" Caters of intentionally baiting. I think it was just a sloppy post, and was left there for whomever came along to trip and stumble over it. The net result is what I characterize as "passive baiting."


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> This is not a "fascinating thread" - it's a simple music theory question, quickly answered - unless the fascination is in watching you contort yourself into a pretzel trying to rationalize an unfair accusation of "attempted covert passive baiting."


I'm interested in "net results," not nit-picking and bickering. The next time a "simple theory question" is posited, I hope that more care and attention to complete information is exerted.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> _Yes it is confusing, _since it depicts a passage with *a key signature of Ab*. This is the very image that caused Woodduck to make his mistake, when he "forgot" that the sonata is really in C minor.


errrm...wanna check that again...?


----------



## EdwardBast

Great Jabber's ar$e! Let it crawl off and die already.

The reason I didn't just write a full analysis in my first post was because I thought it might help for Caters to first compare what she had concluded about the passage quoted in #4, mm. 79ff, with the later passage that was confusing her, since the underlying progression is the same, although complicated by rhythmic displacements. The main point I hope she takes from this thread (besides remembering to include key signatures ) is that making sense of musical passages generally requires examining them as complete grammatical units, that is, whole phrases or sentences.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> errrm...wanna check that again...?


Okay, Eb... I haven't got time to go back and double-check everything I say in this pointless, bickering, right-fighting mess. I was going by Woodduck's "memory slip" post.



Woodduck said:


> For anyone who doesn't know that the "Pathetique" is in Ab, and who wasn't tipped off by the Db in the example, any momentary confusion was promptly cleared up by EdwardBast in posts #4 and #9. It appeared that by post #12 all confusion was dispelled.
> 
> Easy theory question. Smiles all around. Right?
> 
> So what the hell is going on now, with complaints about "no key specified," accusations of "covert" actions, "baiting," and whatnot?





EdwardBast said:


> The sonata as a whole is in C minor. The passage in question is in Ab.





Woodduck said:


> You're right. Thanks. Memory slip.


*This would have been a good time for mikeh375 to chime in and say: errrm...hey Woodduck, wanna check that again...? But he didn't!*


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> errrm...wanna check that again...?


You made a mistake, mikeh375!
Maybe Edward Bast should be made to check his post again, too: he said the same thing:



EdwardBast said:


> Mike and Millions: You've been misled. *The OP omitted the key signature (three flats). * *The underlying progression...**is...**in the key of A-flat. *


Referring to "the relatively simple progression in the key of A-flat", if anything, complicates the issue, since we are talking about a passage with an E-flat signature.

Besides that, did I really make a mistake? I said, and meant, that the passage was _ultimately _derived from an _underlying progression in A-flat,_ and _not_ that the passage excerpt itself, or the work as a whole, was in Ab:



millionrainbows said:


> _Yes it is confusing, _since it depicts a passage with a key signature of Ab. This is the very image that caused Woodduck to make his mistake, when he "forgot" that the sonata is really in C minor.


So the passage depicted is _ultimately_ in the key of three flats: Eb, but the whole thing is in C minor.

The passage I referred to should have been depicted in three flats (Eb), but is derived from the key of Ab (four flats).

The passage was unmarked*! *What do you expect from such sloppy OP posting, mikeh375? Am I supposed to read minds?

In fact, this whole thread is sloppy. In post #4, EdwardBast said nothing about the key signature of the passage, where it came from, or where it went. Woodduck as well had a "memory slip" which I am now being held responsible for as _my _error by mikeh375.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> You made a mistake, mikeh375!
> 
> Maybe Edward Bast should be made to check his post again, too: he said the same thing:
> 
> *Calling it "the key signature" does not clarify anything, and if anything, confuses the issue*.
> 
> Besides that, did I really make a mistake? I did specify that the passage, not the work as a whole, was in Ab:


My God! Are you serious? I called it the key signature because I was talking about the key signature - you know, the sharps or flats one sees at the beginning of musical staves.  No one with even a basic understanding of CP theory would be confused. Everyone knows (or should know) that Beethoven and his contemporaries tended to maintain the key signature of the movement's overall tonic in the face of internal modulations. There is nothing the slightest bit confusing or unusual about a passage in A-flat occurring in a piece in C minor. You know how you can tell when it happens? Look for D-flats and E-flat triads functioning as dominants - like we have in this passage.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> My God! Are you serious? I called it the key signature because I was talking about the key signature - you know, the sharps or flats one sees at the beginning of musical staves.  No one with even a basic understanding of CP theory would be confused. Everyone knows (or should know) that Beethoven and his contemporaries tended to maintain the key signature of the movement's overall tonic in the face of internal modulations. There is nothing the slightest bit confusing or unusual about a passage in A-flat occurring in a piece in C minor. You know how you can tell when it happens? Look for D-flats and E-flat triads functioning as dominants - like we have in this passage.


Sweet Jesus! I can't believe it! You must expect people to read your mind!



> No one with even a basic understanding of CP theory would be confused. Everyone knows (or should know) that Beethoven and his contemporaries tended to maintain the key signature of the movement's overall tonic in the face of internal modulations.


I do know that; that's why I referred to the Db passage as being derived from the key of Ab; yet mikeh375 called this an error. Why not address his blunder? BTW, it _is _confusing when key signatures are omitted. If we expect people to assume, then things go downhill.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> Sweet Jesus! I can't believe it! You must expect people to read your mind!
> 
> I do know that; that's why I referred to the Db passage as being derived from the key of Ab; yet mikeh375 called this an error. Why not address his blunder? BTW, it _is _confusing when key signatures are omitted. If we expect people to assume, then things go downhill.


oh boy, great Jabbas ar*& and front bits thrown in for effect. If you are confused I respectfully suggest you get some training. Are you suggesting I made a mistake when I said the key signature is not A flat?..good luck with that one MR.

The confusion was simply cleared up but you are now proving yourself to be something else entirely. The key signature is in post 4 regardless of any shenanigans...simples. I'm done here and MR, don't ever quote me with doctored words again, continue in that vein and I will retaliate. Do the decent thing and alter post 47 so it does _not_ look like a direct quote from me above and we'll forget about it because you have crossed a line oK.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> oh boy, great Jabbas ar*& and front bits thrown in for effect. If you are confused I respectfully suggest you get some training. Are you suggesting I made a mistake when *I said the key signature is not A flat?*..good luck with that one MR.


The key signature of what?----the whole piece, the passage, or the modulated section the passage is drawn from (as a dominant area)?

The answers, BTW, are C minor, E-flat, and A-flat, in that order. Get some training in writing clearly.



> The confusion was simply cleared up but you are now proving yourself to be something else entirely. The key signature is in post 4 regardless of any shenanigans...simples. *I'm done here and MR, don't ever quote me with doctored words again, continue in that vein and I will retaliate.* Do the decent thing and alter post 47 so it does _not_ look like a direct quote from me above and we'll forget about it because you have crossed a line oK.


That was a hypothetical; it was what you _should _have said., but didn't. Ooo-wee, it sounds like someone is upset. It's probably just an attempt to get the thread closed. :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> It's probably just an attempt to *get the thread closed*. :lol:


Excellent suggestion.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> The key signature of what?----the whole piece, the passage, or the modulated section the passage is drawn from (as a dominant area)?
> 
> The answers, BTW, are C minor, E-flat, and A-flat, in that order. Get some training in writing clearly.
> 
> That was a hypothetical; it was what you _should _have said., but didn't. *Ooo-wee, it sounds like someone is upset. It's probably just an attempt to get the thread closed. :lol:*


No, I can keep this going as long as you wish (your the one making a fool of yourself), but joking about it does not lessen the impact of what you've done. It's not an unreasonable request asking you to show some courtesy and perhaps you are big enough to realise that and make a slight change. If you don't I will report it. Oh and one other thing, don't tell me what I should have said...if there is no joy from the mods then keep an eye out on the forum for some hypothetical posts by your good self.

edit...the bold font isn't really working now is it, you know, not respectful of a genuine concern. Time to grow up perhaps and relinquish that bloody big chip on your shoulder, you know it makes sense.


----------



## mikeh375

post now deleted...the point has been made (at least one hopes so).


----------



## EdwardBast

mikeh375 said:


> No, I can keep this going as long as you wish (your the one making a fool of yourself), but joking about it does not lessen the impact of what you've done. It's not an unreasonable request asking you to show some courtesy and perhaps you are big enough to realise that and make a slight change. *If you don't I will report it.* Oh and one other thing, don't tell me what I should have said...if there is no joy from the mods then keep an eye out on the forum for some hypothetical posts by your good self.
> 
> edit...the bold font isn't really working now is it, you know, not respectful of a genuine concern. Time to grow up perhaps and relinquish that bloody big chip on your shoulder, you know it makes sense.


Report it. This isn't the first time MR has falsified quotations from other contributors.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Report it. This isn't the first time MR has falsified quotations from other contributors.


Indeed it isn't. I've been misrepresented a number of times.


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> The initial post is flawed; there are no clefs, and no key signature. That invalidates the example as a covert attempt to bait others into incorrect replies, which can subsequently be invalidated.
> 
> Therefore, since there is no key specified, every pitch can have *12 possible "functions" or meanings*, as members of a chord, or as a root station.
> 
> This is not my doing; this is the original poster's foible.


Appreciate your open-mindedness, but have to disagree with this one MR. I see where you're coming from, but there are established relationships that don't really work any other way. I made this video just for you, for illustration. Going from an Am key signature through to the Ab major. I even threw a chromatic interpretation (note the A would have to be flattened to work as a chromatic progression). None sound right except for the Ab, the chromatic one still sounds to imply something diatonic, and doesn't work. I only focused on the more plausible ones, the other ones with sharps would just sound worse.


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> Appreciate your open-mindedness, but have to disagree with this one MR. I see where you're coming from, but there are established relationships that don't really work any other way.


Are y'all having fun out there in CP diatonic function land?


----------



## millionrainbows

edwardbast said:


> report it. This isn't the first time mr has falsified quotations from other contributors.





woodduck said:


> indeed it isn't. I've been misrepresented a number of times.


Lynch him! Lynch him! Oh, it's so nice to be loved! 
BTW, I'm sorry I invaded Poland. :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Are y'all having fun out there in CP diatonic function land?


Hey, why not? Beethoven seemed to be having fun with all that pedantic circle of fifths crap.


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> Appreciate your open-mindedness, but have to disagree with this one MR. I see where you're coming from, but there are established relationships that don't really work any other way. I made this video just for you, for illustration. Going from an Am key signature through to the Ab major. I even threw a chromatic interpretation (note the A would have to be flattened to work as a chromatic progression). None sound right except for the Ab, the chromatic one still sounds to imply something diatonic, and doesn't work. I only focused on the more plausible ones, the other ones with sharps would just sound worse.


I listened to it, but couldn't tell what your point is.

Here's an example that shows how every chromatic note can be a root.

We start with a simple C major triad: CEG. 
1. Then we put a C in the bass, and it's a C major.
2. C# in the bass, and it's a C#min -maj7b5
3. D in the bass and it's Dsus9
4. Eb in the bass and it's Eb13b9
5. E in the bass: Eaug5maj7#9
6. F in bass: Fmaj7/9
7. F# bass: F#7b5b9
8. G bass: Gsus13
9. Ab bass: Abmaj7b13
10. A bass: Amin7
11. Bb bass: Bb13b5b9
12. B bass: Bsusb9b13

I didn't double-check this example, but I'm sure if there is an error, that the kind, compassionate denizens of CP theory-land will point this out to me politely, without misrepresenting me or falsifying quotations.


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> I listened to it, but couldn't tell what your point is.
> 
> Here's an example that shows how *every chromatic note can be a root*.
> 
> We start with a simple C major triad: CEG.
> 1. Then we put a C in the bass, and it's a C major.
> 2. C# in the bass, and it's a C#min -maj7b5
> 3. D in the bass and it's Dsus9
> 4. Eb in the bass and it's Eb13b9
> 5. E in the bass: Eaug5maj7#9
> 6. F in bass: Fmaj7/9
> 7. F# bass: F#7b5b9
> 8. G bass: Gsus13
> 9. Ab bass: Abmaj7b13
> 10. A bass: Amin7
> 11. Bb bass: Bb13b5b9
> 12. B bass: Bsusb9b13
> 
> I didn't double-check this example, but I'm sure if there is an error, that the kind, compassionate denizens of CP theory-land will point this out to me politely, without misrepresenting me or falsifying quotations.


When you said you wanted to look at the 2 1/2 bar passage chromatically, I took it as meaning as a chromatic progression with the key signature left out and not in terms of any key, rather than diatonically. That was what I based the last scenario on and my comment on the chromatic possibilities (which aren't great).

But what you're doing now is not even looking at the passage at all, and making an isolated case of substituting the bass note C in the triad CEG with every note of the scale, which is completely removed from the passage in question. Furthermore you substituting the bass note C with a another note doesn't automatically make that bass note of the chord a root without some context, especially not with the other notes in that passage. Thirdly the idea of a root is going back to diatonic analysis, which I thought you were trying to get away from (those damn CP'ers!). Is that what you meant by looking at the passage chromatically?


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> When you said you wanted to look at the 2 1/2 bar passage chromatically, I took it as meaning as a chromatic progression with the key signature left out and not in terms of any key, rather than diatonically. That was what I based the last scenario on and my comment on the chromatic possibilities (which aren't great).
> 
> But what you're doing now is not even looking at the passage at all, and making an isolated case of substituting the bass note C in the triad CEG with every note of the scale, which is completely removed from the passage in question.


It's done that way to illustrate the underlying principle, which you don't seem to be able to accept for some academic reason.



> Furthermore you substituting the bass note C with a another note doesn't automatically make that bass note of the chord a root without some context, especially not with the other notes in that passage.


...and I suppose you mean "diatonic context."

I'm not doing it in context; that's too restrictive. The example illustrates that notes can be considered in 12 ways, using isolated chords. I'm not necessarily talking about "keys" per se. Remember, my exact words were "


millionrainbows said:


> Anything can be analyzed any way, if there is no key specified. Each note has 12 possibilities. Doesn't it?





> Thirdly the idea of a root is going back to diatonic analysis, which I thought you were trying to get away from (those damn CP'ers!). Is that what you meant by looking at the passage chromatically?


What's the problem, Phil? The example is still there. Did you even look at it?


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> It's done that way to illustrate the underlying principle, which you don't seem to be able to accept for some academic reason.
> 
> ...and I suppose you mean "diatonic context."
> 
> I'm not doing it in context; that's too restrictive. The example illustrates that notes can be considered in 12 ways, using isolated chords. I'm not necessarily talking about "keys" per se. Remember, my exact words were "
> 
> What's the problem, Phil? The example is still there. Did you even look at it?


No problem with your example in isolation, but you're not really analyzing the passage in any way, which I thought was the whole idea. Show how your idea or concept is able to analyze *the passage in question* in 12 ways "chromatically" as you claimed.


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> No problem with your example in isolation, but you're not really analyzing the passage in any way, which I thought was the whole idea. Show how your idea or concept is able to analyze *the passage in question* in 12 ways "chromatically" as you claimed.


It can't be done in a CP context, in diatonic music, using only 'recognized' functions, etc.

In case you hadn't noticed by the history & progression of the discussion, I long ago withdrew from attempting an analysis of the passage, mainly because of the incomplete examples. The 'chromatic card' I threw on the table was just a way of saying that I have bigger fish to fry.

Or did nobody get that?


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> It can't be done in a CP context, in diatonic music, using only 'recognized' functions, etc.
> 
> In case you hadn't noticed by the history & progression of the discussion, I long ago withdrew from attempting an analysis of the passage, mainly because of the incomplete examples. The 'chromatic card' I threw on the table was just a way of saying that I have bigger fish to fry.
> 
> Or did nobody get that?


I didn't get it, at least. I only got the impression the chromatic idea sounds better by way of talking than in practice for this application.


----------

