# Is 1 chord per bar really better than 1 chord per eighth note?



## caters

So, I've been analyzing many pieces for their harmony as I am writing a book about music theory. I know a lot of theory, from beginnings with notation and triads to advanced polychords and polytonality. But I still have my troubles when it comes to analysis, especially in Romantic era pieces like Chopin's Nocturnes for example. But this is a Haydn piece, the harmony should be crystal clear. And yet, I'm being told that my analysis of the main theme of Haydn's Gypsy Rondo is too vertical, that I have way more chord changes than there actually are in 2 of the bars. Here's my analysis:









As you can see I analyzed it as 1 chord per eighth note. And here's the analysis that people are suggesting:









Some are even suggesting that the first chord of the seventh bar should be ii instead of V4/3, but I'm not convinced. It goes into V7 right afterwards and there's a D on beat 1. Sure, it's on the fourth sixteenth of beat 1, but that D being present already suggests that it's a D7 chord.

Basically, the people who are suggesting that I get rid of the V4/2 alternations in my analysis are saying that all the V4/2 chords, primary and secondary, with the exception of the one leading into bar 5 are passing and neighbor harmonies and thus shouldn't be shown in my harmonic analysis. I get where they are coming from, I analyzed a passage with a similar abundance of harmonies from Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata like this:









Plagal motions with a bunch of non-chord tones, passing and appoggiatura, all over a tonic pedal point. Other analyses that I have seen which use V7/IV, V7, and I(major tonic) for that same passage, it doesn't seem like those are the real chords, the V7 in particular doesn't seem like V7 to me until bar 5 and again in bar 13, it's not an unstable arrival, it's a quick motion with no chance to cause instability. And even though the major tonic is emphasized by the accent marking and the half notes, I don't think Beethoven would be happy if I said it moved to the major tonic.

But this isn't Beethoven I am analyzing here, it's Haydn. And it isn't an Allegro on the fast side, it's a Presto on the slow side. Presto suggests rapid chord changes. And the fact that in the first half of the phrase, the harmonic changes occur on the level of the eighth note, suggests to me that the second half would be similar in that respect. And increased harmonic rhythm or in this case, rhythmic activity is very common near cadences(which the next bar is a cadence on G). And the tritone moving to a sixth that is in the backbone of the phrase suggests tonic-dominant alternations.

So, is there anything wrong with the reasoning behind me analyzing at the level of the eighth note in this Haydn theme? If so, what? And if not, why would it be wrong for me to analyze at the level of the eighth note in this Haydn theme?


----------



## Woodduck

With no academic authority whatsoever, I would have indicated chord changes on the eighth notes, as you did. I hear those changes as significant in creating the relative (to what precedes them) instability and agitation of those two bars, and your/my analysis acknowledges that. It is not incorrect to do so - the changes are there - regardless of anyone's preference.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Indeed, there are sections like that in Classical music. One example would be tonic-dominant alternations such as the example below (



). So essentially bars 1~4 consist of alternations of I and V, and bars 5~8 consist of alternations of V6 and I. 
Would you indicate all the "chord changes", or simply outline the general pattern, that the whole passage of bars 1~4 acts as the "tonic" (since the I is always on the strong beat) and whole the passage of bars 5~8 overall acts as the "dominant" (since the V6 is always on the strong beat) in the overall pattern? I think it's important to always keep in mind what (ie. patterns, governing rules) you're trying to recognize through pondering your examples, rather than marking and labelling everything just for the sake of it. 








Btw, the Beethoven example in your post reminds me of the example below. Do you think the beginning sounds like V/iv in C minor? Or I in C major?:


hammeredklavier said:


> Actually, this part with the non-chord tone E flat
> 
> 
> 
> "V/iv - iv - *V* - VI - iv6 - V" may be a bit more appropriate as an example for this thread. But I think the example I posted earlier is also noteworthy, in the context of the discussion on "i - [something chromatic] - V(7)".


----------



## pianozach

A lot to unpack here.

Writing a book on music theory when you yourself have "trouble" with harmonic analysis? Perhaps you're just doubting yourself, I don't know.

As for those two bars, both analyses are correct. You can think of a lot of the movement as "passing tones" IF YOU WANT. 

However, if you were attempting a chart for someone that doesn't read music notation, but DOES read chord charts, your first analysis would probably be more helpful.


----------



## EdwardBast

"People" are right on every point. It's silly to analyze chord changes on the 8th notes. That kind of myopic focus will keep you from understanding anything about how chord progression works and the role of non-harmonic tones. 

You should be thinking about reading theory texts, not writing them. Have you studied theory in any formal setting? If you learned this style of analysis from a teacher, get a new teacher.


----------



## caters

hammeredklavier said:


> Indeed, there are sections like that in Classical music. One example would be tonic-dominant alternations such as the example below (
> 
> 
> 
> ). So essentially bars 1~4 consist of alternations of I and V, and bars 5~8 consist of alternations of V6 and I.
> Would you indicate all the "chord changes", or simply outline the general pattern, that the whole passage of bars 1~4 acts as the "tonic" (since the I is always on the strong beat) and whole the passage of bars 5~8 overall acts as the "dominant" (since the V6 is always on the strong beat) in the overall pattern? I think it's important to always keep in mind what (ie. patterns, governing rules) you're trying to recognize through pondering your examples, rather than marking and labelling everything just for the sake of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, the Beethoven example in your post reminds me of the example below. Do you think the beginning sounds like V/iv in C minor? Or I in C major?:


It really could be either. I would think V/iv though as I don't see any sort of prolonged parallel shift, it's just that 1 chord, so it's probably better analyzed with a C minor tonic. This sort of ambiguity on the tonic to analyze it in also shows up earlier in the introduction of the Pathetique Sonata:









Ignoring that whole "/V/V" thing, the diminished chord at bar 6 could be seen as vii°7/vi in Eb or just vii°7 in C minor. I myself prefer the C minor interpretation because the Eb major cadence is evaded until the second theme of the sonata. The cadenza over the octave Bb in bar 4 makes the move to Eb in bar 5 not feel like a cadence to me and so I prefer to view the entire introduction as being in C minor without modulations.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> "People" are right on every point. It's silly to analyze chord changes on the 8th notes. That kind of myopic focus will keep you from understanding anything about how chord progression works and the role of non-harmonic tones.


I've been waiting for years to disagree with you about something, EB, and so, rather than be frustrated at the fact that I actually mostly agree with you, I'll just contribute the observation that harmonic analysis is like unpacking a set of Russian nesting dolls, discovering structures within structures. At what level we choose to identify the structures that exist depends on our purpose, but there's value in recognizing what we hear at all levels. We only get into trouble - and not only in music - if focusing on details makes us lose the larger picture. I'd say that caters is actually wrong only if he lets that happen.

The analysis that "people" have suggested of the passage in question chooses to ignore something that actually happens in the music, something that performers - people much more important than analysts - should not be unaware of. If I were the pianist I'd give an extra kick to those "nonharmonic" tones (the C and the D), if that's what you want to call them, just to make the harmonic microshifts clear and effective.

Given that the tempo is "presto," this may all be pointless argumentation, but I thought it would be fun to argue with you for once.


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> "People" are right on every point. It's silly to analyze chord changes on the 8th notes. That kind of myopic focus will keep you from understanding anything about how chord progression works and the role of non-harmonic tones.
> 
> You should be thinking about reading theory texts, not writing them. Have you studied theory in any formal setting? If you learned this style of analysis from a teacher, get a new teacher.


Has he not heard of "passing tones?" And I even recognize passing chords. When I analyze a work I want a high altitude look and reduce it to the simplistic, broadest, harmonic structure.


----------



## caters

SanAntone said:


> Has he not heard of "passing tones?" And I even recognize passing chords. When I analyze a work I want a high altitude look and reduce it to the simplistic, broadest, harmonic structure.


I have heard of them and I know when I've got a passing chord happening in Beethoven, as you can see with my Pathetique Sonata example in the first post. And passing tones in the melody are easy for me to spot, I've spotted plenty in my analyses prior to this Haydn analysis. But when notes that people say are passing tones form another harmony, and especially if things about the phrase like tempo and where I am in the form(sentence continuation, the second half of a period antecedent or consequent) suggest rapid harmonic change, it becomes hard for me to say that it's just passing tones.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> Has he not heard of "passing tones?" And I even recognize passing chords. When I analyze a work I want a high altitude look and reduce it to the simplistic, broadest, harmonic structure.


If all analysis confined itself to the simplest, broadest harmonic structure we would have little to say about what goes on in an enormous amount of music. It would be like driving through a landscape and describing the trip only in terms of our point of origin and our destination.

I wouldn't call everything that happens in that measure "passing." It all depends on what you want to "pass" without noting what happens along the way.


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> If all analysis confined itself to the simplest, broadest harmonic structure we would have little to say about what goes on in an enormous amount of music. It would be like driving through a landscape and describing the trip only in terms of our point of origin and our destination.
> 
> I wouldn't call everything that happens in that measure "passing." It all depends on what you want to "pass" without noting what happens along the way.


It depends on why you are analyzing the work. There is no one way to do it, but there it is a mistake of getting to finely granular which ends up obfuscating what is important.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

I would those 2 measures 1 chord per measure. But as SA says, it all depends on what level of abstraction you're going for.

I personally disagree with EB that it's too "myopic". Anyone with any musical sense at all should be able to pick up on the larger I-ii-V structure with the analysis you provide.


----------



## Bwv 1080

This is getting granular, but why do you call the second to last chord in the first example V 4/3? the first two downbeats in the treble are C and E over A in bass? looks like ii to me


----------



## caters

Bwv 1080 said:


> This is getting granular, but why do you call the second to last chord in the first example V 4/3? the first two downbeats in the treble are C and E over A in bass? looks like ii to me


Because of the presence of D and also, more than anything, it just feels like the music has moved to the dominant at the start of the seventh measure.


----------



## Bwv 1080

caters said:


> Because of the presence of D and also, more than anything, it just feels like the music has moved to the dominant at the start of the seventh measure.


the 5&6th measure is a Monte with some filler, not sure how you get V 42 for C and E on the first upbeat of 6 that is just a 5/3 chord with F as a passing tone, so its I6-IV ii6-V. So 5-7 on is |I6-IV I6-V|ii6-V ii6-viio/ii|ii V7|

I6-IV and ii6-V is the Monte pattern
http://openmusictheory.com/schemataContinuationPatterns


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> I've been waiting for years to disagree with you about something, EB, and so, rather than be frustrated at the fact that I actually mostly agree with you, I'll just contribute the observation that harmonic analysis is like unpacking a set of Russian nesting dolls, discovering structures within structures. At what level we choose to identify the structures that exist depends on our purpose, but there's value in recognizing what we hear at all levels. We only get into trouble - and not only in music - if focusing on details makes us lose the larger picture. I'd say that caters is actually wrong only if he lets that happen.
> 
> *The analysis that "people" have suggested of the passage in question chooses to ignore something that actually happens in the music,* something that performers - people much more important than analysts - should not be unaware of. If I were the pianist I'd give an extra kick to those "nonharmonic" tones (the C and the D), if that's what you want to call them, just to make the harmonic microshifts clear and effective.
> 
> Given that the tempo is "presto," this may all be pointless argumentation, but I thought it would be fun to argue with you for once.


It's not "ignoring something that actually happens." It's making a distinction between linear phenomena and harmonic events - the most basic and essential kind of distinction one must learn in doing harmonic analysis. Do you know the parable of the entomologist at the zoo? When asked to describe her visit she says: "It was wonderful: Thousands upon thousands of flies, ants, fleas, grubs, and beetles in each enclosure! … But the signs were confusing."

Seriously though, if ones analytic technique fails to distinguish between the harmonic rhythm of a classical sonata and a Bach chorale - and that applied above would fail - one is decidedly on the wrong track.

Caters needs to find a competent teacher - although the "people" giving him advice on the above examples sound smart.


----------



## Bwv 1080

EdwardBast said:


> It's not "ignoring something that actually happens." It's making a distinction between linear phenomena and harmonic events - the most basic and essential kind of distinction one must learn in doing harmonic analysis. Do you know the fable of the entomologist at the zoo? When asked to describe her visit she says: "It was wonderful: Thousands upon thousands of flies, ants, fleas, grubs, and beetles in each enclosure! … But the signs were confusing."
> 
> Seriously though, if ones analytic technique fails to distinguish between the harmonic rhythm of a classical sonata and a Bach chorale - and that applied here wouldn't - one is doing something very wrong.


I agree and disagree - given that counterpoint is harmony and vice versa, there is some value to analyzing vertical contrapuntal sonorities. Of course harmonic relationships exist at multiple time horizons - from the individual counterpoint within a phrase, to the relationships between phrases and overall form. But of course neither Haydn or Beethoven thought in terms Roman numeral analysis, it just that their counterpoint training and employing the various schemas they had internalized resulted in music that could later be analyzed with Roman numerals


----------



## caters

Bwv 1080 said:


> the 5&6th measure is a Monte with some filler, not sure how you get V 42 for C and E on the first upbeat of 6 that is just a 5/3 chord with F as a passing tone, so its I6-IV ii6-V. So 5-7 on is |I6-IV I6-V|ii6-V ii6-viio/ii|ii V7|
> 
> I6-IV and ii6-V is the Monte pattern
> http://openmusictheory.com/schemataContinuationPatterns


Uh, there's a tritone moving in contrary motion to a sixth right in the harmonic backbone of those bars. That tritone is only present in dominant function chords(dominant, half diminished, and diminished seventh chords) and augmented sixths in Haydn.


----------



## Bwv 1080

caters said:


> Uh, there's a tritone moving in contrary motion to a sixth right in the harmonic backbone of those bars. That tritone is only present in dominant function chords(dominant, half diminished, and diminished seventh chords) and augmented sixths in Haydn.


Where did you hear that all passing tones that make a tritone with the bass have a dominant function? What about an ascending scale over IV?


----------



## caters

Bwv 1080 said:


> Where did you hear that all passing tones that make a tritone with the bass have a dominant function? What about an ascending scale over IV?


The tritone is the one interval that I haven't seen in any of my passing tone examples thus far. I've seen fourths, thirds, lots of intervals in passing motions, but never a tritone. The only times I have seen a tritone in contrary motion that isn't just a byproduct of independent melodic interactions in say a fugue or a canon is in dominant function chords and augmented sixth chords. I have seen the tritone as neighbor tones and appoggiaturas, but that's not a contrary motion resolution like what's happening here in the Haydn rondo.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> if ones analytic technique fails to distinguish between the harmonic rhythm of a classical sonata and a Bach chorale


then it's doomed to fail to distinguish the rhythmic harmony of







and








or, 




and


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Caters needs to find a competent teacher - although the "people" giving him advice on the above examples sound smart.


Btw, I wonder what MR would have said if he was here, probably something to the effect of:
"My views are more progressive than yours, and I hope Caters will seek out a flexible teacher, not someone who comes across as a nun, complete with guilt-tripping and knuckle-rapping."


millionrainbows said:


> My views are more progressive than yours, and I hope camus will seek out a flexible teacher, not someone who comes across as a nun, complete with guilt-tripping and knuckle-rapping.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> It's not "ignoring something that actually happens." It's making a distinction between linear phenomena and harmonic events - the most basic and essential kind of distinction one must learn in doing harmonic analysis.


One can make that distinction and still recognize that lines imply and outline harmonic events. The structural importance of an event may be minor, and its expressive importance might be debated, but the fact that it's a consequence of linear activity doesn't make it inaudible or nonexistent. It would be easy to remove the melodic passing tones from that measure and represent it as a sequence of chords.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, I wonder what MR would have said if he was here, probably something to the effect of:
> "My views are more progressive than yours, and I hope Caters will seek out a flexible teacher, not someone who comes across as a nun, complete with guilt-tripping and knuckle-rapping."


Thanks for that trip down memory lane.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Has he not heard of "passing tones?" And I even recognize passing chords. When I analyze a work I want a high altitude look and reduce it to the simplistic, broadest, harmonic structure.


Yes, this is a classic (excuse the pun) example of the use of passing tones that one finds in abundance in the music of Haydn (and Mozart). As usual, Haydn finds a way to be slightly unorthodox, even in this simple opening theme. Rather than a simple descending scale, there are descending broken thirds. But the steady left hand keeps the basic harmonic progression firmly established. Mozart's violin concerto no. 4 (in D, K.218), which I was listening to earlier today, goes much further in the imaginative use of passing tones.

Subtle details such as making passing tones into elaborate patterns and then using them to create thematic development and/or unity are the whole ballgame in much of Haydn and Mozart. If you look at a piece solely in terms of its harmonic progressions, you are mostly or entirely missing the point.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> As usual, Haydn finds a way to be slightly unorthodox, even in this simple opening theme. Mozart's violin concerto no. 4 (in D, K.218), which I was listening to earlier today, goes much further in the imaginative use of passing tones.


The more I listen to all that stuff, and stuff like watch?v=EEyEEfXUypU&t=3m48s the more I'm convinced Mozart's origin doesn't have much to do with the likes of Haydn, but rather, backwater Classical contrapuntists such as A.C. Adlgasser (an organist of Salzburg). watch?v=STv-mk2Npyo&t=1m20s (it's a digitally simulated version, since Adlgasser has virtually none of his output recorded.)
Listen to the harmonies, as this particular movement reminds me of the slow movement of K.218 and the agnus dei of K.258: watch?v=o0u_XpSjLdw&t=7m23s
I often feel harmony isn't everything to music; it's also wrong, for instance, to judge Beethoven by the way Bach or Mozart wrote harmony; the way he builds dramatic tension in the context of his expansive narratives and dynamic contrasts can be seen as just as expressive as theirs.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Subtle details such as making passing tones into elaborate patterns and then using them to create thematic development and/or unity are the whole ballgame in much of Haydn and Mozart.


The _whole_ ballgame?



> If you look at a piece solely in terms of its harmonic progressions, you are mostly or entirely missing the point.


I may have wandered into the wrong ballpark somewhere along the way, but I've always thought that one of the hallmarks of Classicism was the thoroughness, clarity and comprehensibility of its use of tonality (harmony at scale) as an organizing principle. I've thought of that period as solidifying the bias of Western music and music theory which favors harmony as a - and maybe _the_ - predominant component of the game. It's been argued that Western music theory focuses _too much_ on harmony independent of melody and rhythm; harmony seems to have been more or less the whole ballgame for Schoenberg, at least as a theorist. But a significant focus on harmony finds substantial justification in the actual music of the Common Practice era. All those "subtle details such as making passing tones into elaborate patterns and then using them to create thematic development and/or unity" are grounded in harmonic progressions, the logic and clarity of which it was a major compulsion of Classicism to achieve. Is this anywhere more obvious and important than in the music of Haydn? If I had to put a number on it, I'd say that in his music tonal structure and harmonic movement are at least half the ballgame. At the very least, he never drops the ball.

I doubt that most people - at least people not doing theory assignments - look at music "solely in terms of its harmonic progressions." I don't think caters is doing that. He's merely asking whether it's worthwhile or proper to take note of a progression at least implied by a particular bar of music. Why this is an occasion for dogmatic statements or strawmanning I cannot see.


----------



## EdwardBast

Bwv 1080 said:


> I agree and disagree - given that counterpoint is harmony and vice versa, there is some value to analyzing vertical contrapuntal sonorities. Of course harmonic relationships exist at multiple time horizons - from the individual counterpoint within a phrase, to the relationships between phrases and overall form. But of course neither Haydn or Beethoven thought in terms Roman numeral analysis, it just that their counterpoint training and employing the various schemas they had internalized resulted in music that could later be analyzed with Roman numerals


We're taking for granted that the OP is doing Roman numeral analysis. Even though it's anachronistic from a Classical Era composer's perspective, it's a standard pedagogical approach, for better or for worse.

Counterpoint isn't harmony, it's counterpoint. All kinds of harmonically irrelevant (or insignificant) vertical sonorities arise on the small scale if one ignores the linear function of non-harmonic tones. That's how a certain now banned former member used to find independent 7th and 9th chords in Bach. I maintain that noting changes on the 8th note in the OP's examples only obscures important distinctions between what should be analyzed as linear versus harmonic phenomena. The people advising him about this are absolutely correct.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> One can make that distinction and still recognize that lines imply and outline harmonic events. The structural importance of an event may be minor, and its expressive importance might be debated, but *the fact that it's a consequence of linear activity doesn't make it inaudible or nonexistent.* It would be easy to remove the melodic passing tones from that measure and represent it as a sequence of chords.


It doesn't make it inaudible or nonexistent, but from the perspective of harmonic function at any useful level it makes it insignificant. Generally speaking, anything that can be accounted for as linear should be accounted for that way. That's how one gets to what is notable from the perspective of harmonic function and progression. It's like weeding. Otherwise one gets lost in the shrubbery when one should at least be looking for trees.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> All kinds of harmonically irrelevant (or insignificant) vertical sonorities arise on the small scale if one ignores the linear function of non-harmonic tones.


Some people claim to identify the three augmented 6th chords, Italian, French, German, in bar 303 of this (



), calling the harmony in the whole measure, Int+6 ("International Augmented 6th chord"), but they seem like "harmonically irrelevant (or insignificant) vertical sonorities arising on the small scale from ignoring linear function of non-harmonic tones" to me. Just cause it "sounds like" them, it doesn't mean it's them.











hammeredklavier said:


> The way to reach the dominant from i64, with the chromatic ascent C -> C# -> D, with the major second [ G, A ] on the top (D -> C -> C# -> D | G -> F# | Bb -> A)
> 
> 
> 
> sounds so eerie


I could maybe say that "this progression is "i (Gm) -> V7/V (A7) -> V (D)"; since the chromatic ascent C -> C# -> D, with the major second [ G, A ] on the top creates the succession of "chords", [C, G, A], [C#, G, A], and they're essentially "borrowed 7th chords with missing/implied 5ths ([A, C, G], [A, C#, G]) in their inversion"." -But is this what's really "happening harmonically"?


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> Some people claim to identify the three augmented 6th chords, Italian, French, German, in bar 303 of this (
> 
> 
> 
> ), calling the harmony in the whole measure, Int+6 ("International Augmented 6th chord"), but they seem like "harmonically irrelevant (or insignificant) vertical sonorities arising on the small scale from ignoring linear function of non-harmonic tones" to me. Just cause it "sounds like" them, it doesn't mean it's them.


Multiple nationalities would be silly niggling. If one wishes to pick one, German is the obvious choice, given the viola's Eb in the next measure.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> It doesn't make it inaudible or nonexistent, but *from the perspective* of harmonic function at any *useful* level it makes it *insignificant*. Generally speaking, *anything that can be accounted for as linear should be accounted for that way.* That's how one gets to *what is notable* from the perspective of harmonic function and progression.It's like weeding. Otherwise one gets lost in the *shrubbery* when one should at least be looking for *trees*.


The terms of your argument are relative terms, including shrubbery and trees.

If I were to write a harmonic reduction of the Haydn (which I'd do right here if I knew how to do such things on a computer), I would fail to capture the distinct difference in energy between bars 5 and 6 and the rest if I failed to note the rapid succession of implied harmonies in those two bars. They do constitute a progression, whether or not anyone thinks it's "useful" or "significant." I think it's both. In fact, on pulling out and listening to my CD of the piece for the first time in years, I find these rapid shifts more important to the character and effect of the passage than the quick upbeats in the preceding bars, the importance of which are not in dispute. Maybe your ears tell you something different.



> Generally speaking, anything that can be accounted for as linear should be accounted for that way.


I don't disagree with this. I do disagree that every harmonic change in measures 5 and 6 can be considered purely a result of the movement of lines. The choice of which way a line is drawn can be driven by a harmonic need, and I think it's so driven here. There is no need for the g# in bar 5 except as a leading tone to the ii on the next beat, and as such it constitutes a "mini-modulation" to A minor. Had Haydn thought entirely in terms of a G major chord in bar 5 he could have written a g-natural, but he wanted a bit of tonal restlessness here to energize and propel things along. It's harmonic thinking which underlies and directs the counterpoint, and I've seen no good reason not to acknowledge it by dipping into our little kit of Roman numerals.

It seems to me that the attempt to "explain" harmonies (or explain them away) as mere coincidences of counterpoint - or to do the converse - can have its pitfalls.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> All the terms of your argument are relative terms, including shrubbery and trees. .... They do constitute a progression, whether or not anyone thinks it's "useful" or "significant." I think it's both.


Although I see what you're saying, I have to agree with Eddie here. I think one of the things that differentiates the 18th century harmonic style from that of the later eras is strict restrictions on what can be recognized/identified as "chords" in Roman numerals. For instance, sonorities vertically (seen as) making up "iv7" or "vi7", for instance, are rarely ever used as "chords"; at least they're not identified or considered as such in the style, I believe. And the Haydn example of the OP seems like certain general tendencies of the Classical period composers that can simply be interpreted as, for example:
"I6/4 - V7 - I6/4" (C major, 2/4 time youtube.com/watch?v=LSQ35qUfVuE&t=1m9s)








But do you see this "progression" as "I6/4 - iii6 - V7 - I6/4"? The presence of the tones "G, B, E" on weak beat of the first measure makes the sonority identifiable as a "iii6 chord"? [%]
Eddie has mentioned some member "identifying" independent 9th chords in the style. If an 18th century composer writes a diminished 7th chord over a pedal tone; let's say in the key of C, he initially sets up a tonic pedal, and then slams vii°7/iv, making up the sonority [C, E, G, Bb, Db]; could this be considered a 9th chord? [@] youtube.com/watch?v=Dzmj8lRLHh0&t=11m41s (bars 217~220; "i - vii°4/2 - V7/iv - iv - vii°4/3 - V7 - i"; makes up vertical sonorities containing [B, D, F, Ab, C]).
To me, what you're saying is like 'saying "yes" to both [%] and [@]'.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Although I see what you're saying, I have to agree with Eddie here. I think one of the things that differentiates the 18th century harmonic style from that of the later eras is strict restrictions on what can be recognized/identified as "chords" in Roman numerals. For instance, sonorities vertically (seen as) making up "iv7" or "vi7", for instance, are rarely ever used as "chords"; at least they're not identified or considered as such in the style, I believe. And the Haydn example of the OP seems like certain general tendencies of the Classical period composers that can simply be interpreted as, for example:
> "I6/4 - V7 - I6/4" (C major, 2/4 time
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But do you see this "progression" as "I6/4 - iii6 - V7 - I6/4"? The presence of the tones "G, B, E" on weak beat of the first measure makes the sonority identifiable as a "iii6 chord"? [%]
> Eddie has mentioned some member "identifying" independent 9th chords in the style. If an 18th century composer writes a diminished 7th chord over a pedal tone; let's say in the key of C, he initially sets up a tonic pedal, and then slams vii°7/iv, making up the sonority [C, E, G, Bb, Db]; could this be considered a 9th chord? [@]
> 
> 
> 
> (bars 217~220; "i - vii°4/2 - V7/iv - iv - vii°4/3 - i"; makes up vertical sonorities containing [B, D, F, Ab, C]).
> To me, *what you're saying is like 'saying "yes" to both [%] and [@]'*.


I don't know whether I'm "saying yes" to your examples, as I find verbal descriptions hard to follow. I think what I'm saying is quite clear. And your musical example contains only three chords, obviously. But surely all of this is a case-by-case matter, and the ears are the best guide. My ear is not easily dissuaded by anyone's theoretical precepts.


----------



## caters

hammeredklavier said:


> Although I see what you're saying, I have to agree with Eddie here. I think one of the things that differentiates the 18th century harmonic style from that of the later eras is strict restrictions on what can be recognized/identified as "chords" in Roman numerals. For instance, sonorities vertically (seen as) making up "iv7" or "vi7", for instance, are rarely ever used as "chords"; at least they're not identified or considered as such in the style, I believe. And the Haydn example of the OP seems like certain general tendencies of the Classical period composers that can simply be interpreted as, for example:
> "I6/4 - V7 - I6/4" (C major, 2/4 time
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But do you see this "progression" as "I6/4 - iii6 - V7 - I6/4"? The presence of the tones "G, B, E" on weak beat of the first measure makes the sonority identifiable as a "iii6 chord"? [%]
> Eddie has mentioned some member "identifying" independent 9th chords in the style. If an 18th century composer writes a diminished 7th chord over a pedal tone; let's say in the key of C, he initially sets up a tonic pedal, and then slams vii°7/iv, making up the sonority [C, E, G, Bb, Db]; could this be considered a 9th chord? [@]
> 
> 
> 
> (bars 217~220; "i - vii°4/2 - V7/iv - iv - vii°4/3 - i"; makes up vertical sonorities containing [B, D, F, Ab, C]).
> To me, what you're saying is like 'saying "yes" to both [%] and [@]'.


I'd just see that as I 6/4 - V7 - I 6/4, no iii chord whatsoever. In part because the left hand is in half notes. But that's not very similar to what's happening in the Haydn example. Only similarity here is the tonic - dominant alternation. Inversions are different as is the rate of change and the presence or absence of secondary chords. In the Haydn rondo, it's between a first inversion triad and a third inversion dominant seventh chord, much faster changes(eighth note instead of half note), and has the secondary dominant of ii. Here in your Mozart example it's between a second inversion triad and root position dominant seventh, much slower at 1 chord change per half note, and has no secondary chords.


----------



## hammeredklavier

caters said:


> In part because the left hand is in half notes. But that's not very similar to what's happening in the Haydn example.


Would you label/assign a Roman numeral to every 8th note in this then?: 












-Wouldn't it obscure our view of what's happening harmonically as opposed to what's happening melodically/contrapuntally?
-Why would we even need to do it in the first place?


----------



## Phil loves classical

The way i would analyse or hear the music is only to look at the strong beats, which would definitely not be in the eighth notes in 4/4 time as in some of the examples, as I think the brain would place more emphasis on the harmony at those particular instants and carry over in between. The exception to the above would be if there is some dissonance on a strong beat that you would look either before or after.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> The terms of your argument are relative terms, including shrubbery and trees.
> 
> If I were to write a harmonic reduction of the Haydn (which I'd do right here if I knew how to do such things on a computer), I would fail to capture the distinct difference in energy between bars 5 and 6 and the rest if I failed to note the rapid succession of implied harmonies in those two bars. *They do constitute a progression, whether or not anyone thinks it's "useful" or "significant."* I think it's both. In fact, on pulling out and listening to my CD of the piece for the first time in years, I find these rapid shifts more important to the character and effect of the passage than the quick upbeats in the preceding bars, the importance of which are not in dispute. Maybe your ears tell you something different.


In any explanation of just about anything, elegance and simplicity are qualities I value. The most important thing to distinguish in those two bars is that if one chooses to designate the events on each eighth as harmonies, those "harmonies" have wildly different weight and significance for the progression, difference that's obscured by placing Roman numerals under each instead of just recognizing neighbor tones and passing tones. (By the way, Caters' analysis has errors. The second beat of m6 should be vi6/4) For a Roman numeral harmonic analysis of that passage I would just write:











Woodduck said:


> I don't disagree with this. I do disagree that every harmonic change in measures 5 and 6 can be considered purely a result of the movement of lines. The choice of which way a line is drawn can be driven by a harmonic need, and I think it's so driven here. There is no need for the g# in bar 5 except as a leading tone to the ii on the next beat, and as such it constitutes a "mini-modulation" to A minor. Had Haydn thought entirely in terms of a *G major chord in bar 5 he could have written a g-natural,* but he wanted a bit of tonal restlessness here to energize and propel things along. It's harmonic thinking which underlies and directs the counterpoint, and I've seen no good reason not to acknowledge it by dipping into our little kit of Roman numerals.
> 
> It seems to me that the attempt to "explain" harmonies (or explain them away) as mere coincidences of counterpoint - or to do the converse - can have its pitfalls.


The question is whether he would have thought of what happens on the last 8th as a chord at all and whether we should. Of course one can scratch in as many Roman numerals as one wants. The only point to doing this passage in the detail Caters did is as an exercise for a beginner just learning the taxonomic system. If one is learning harmonic analysis, any good teacher would ween him away from this and tell him to focus on the significant or structural harmonies and weed out the non-harmonic elements or note them as such.


----------



## caters

hammeredklavier said:


> Would you label/assign a Roman numeral to every 8th note in this then?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Wouldn't it obscure our view of what's happening harmonically as opposed to what's happening melodically/contrapuntally?
> -Why would we even need to do it in the first place?


No, because those eighths in bars 9-12 in your example, only half of them even form a harmony, the rest are chromatic or otherwise obviously non-chordal, including the tritone D# in bars 9 and 10. In the Haydn rondo, they all form a harmony. And they show up in a place where I would expect rapid harmonic change to happen, the continuation of a sentence form. Those 2 things combined, a harmony that I could analyze as a chord on every eighth note and the suggestion of rapid harmonic change due to it being the continuation of a sentence makes it very hard for me to just shrug it off as passing tones. And the presence of tritones right in the skeleton of the phrase makes it even harder, especially since the tritones in the Haydn rondo move in contrary motion to sixths. In your example, it's just oblique motion over an A, which is usually what I see non-chordal tritones doing, moving in oblique motion while the bass stays still.


----------



## caters

EdwardBast said:


> (By the way, Caters' analysis has errors. The second beat of m6 should be vi6/4)


No, not necessarily. Octave B's could be E minor or G major. But vi 6/4 is not in the Classical Style, it's not typically found in Classical Era pieces, so it's most probably I6. Plus it would make little sense for vi to come after ii, which it usually precedes.


----------



## hammeredklavier

caters said:


> And the presence of tritones right in the skeleton of the phrase makes it even harder, especially since the tritones in the Haydn rondo move in contrary motion to sixths. In your example, it's just oblique motion over an A, which is usually what I see non-chordal tritones doing, moving in oblique motion while the bass stays still.


Howabout this; www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3zcq8UCBSM&t=1m32s











caters said:


> No, because those eighths in bars 9-12 in your example, only half of them even form a harmony, the rest are chromatic or otherwise obviously non-chordal, including the tritone D# in bars 9 and 10. In the Haydn rondo, they all form a harmony. And they show up in a place where I would expect rapid harmonic change to happen, the continuation of a sentence form. Those 2 things combined, a harmony that I could analyze as a chord on every eighth note and the *suggestion* of rapid harmonic change due to it being the continuation of a sentence makes it very hard for me to just shrug it off as passing tones.


I still think you're making too much a fuss over non-chord tones. I think they're just not really that noteworthy enough as incidents (in such a way as to) to establish momentary modulations such as applied dominants there as you claim. So you're saying some tones dispersed linearly in those measures _suggest_ "V4/2" (circled in red), and "V4/2 /ii" (circled in blue).








But notice they aren't even "aligned" vertically; ie. in bar 6, you've indicated that the tones "C, E, A" establish "ii6", but in the next 'half beat' where you've indicated "V4/2 /ii", the tones are "D, F#, G#", so you're pointing to the "E" from the previous 'half beat' to suggest "V4/2 /ii". It's a convoluted mess, if you ask me. And the alleged "4/2 chords" lack their 5ths. I think you're making the same sort of mistakes (ie. focusing on tonic-dominant alternations, and confusing non-chord tones with chord tones) we talked about previously in this thread. If I were you, I'd just follow Eddie's suggestion. Here's a real example (of series of 'V6/5 - I's; except the 'vii°6/5 - i' in bar 232) of the sort of noteworthy incidents I'm talking about: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzmj8lRLHh0&t=12m (and at 12:41)


----------



## Bwv 1080

see
https://www.talkclassical.com/73244-roman-numerals-amateurs-3.html#post2179160

This whole discussion illustrates the problem with Roman numeral analysis - it breaks down when things get more complex and results in arguing about trivia that has no relationship to the actual craft employed by the composer (again Haydn did not compose with Roman numerals).

Also the passage is contrapuntal so one can assume linear considerations played at least as large of a role as harmonic ones, who cares what the resultant harmony is in the middle of a two-part texture like bar 5? Haydn's decisions were first melodic and then following counterpoint norms with harmonic implications left perhaps as a tertiary consideration

But if all you have is a hammer (i.e. Roman Numerals) then everything is a nail


----------



## EdwardBast

caters said:


> No, not necessarily. Octave B's could be E minor or G major. *But vi 6/4 is not in the Classical Style, it's not typically found in Classical Era pieces, so it's most probably I6.* Plus it would make little sense for vi to come after ii, which it usually precedes.


You are drawing the wrong conclusion from the discussion. There's no point to analyzing what happens on that 8th as an independent harmony at all. If what you say about the vi6/4 were true - it isn't - that would just further demonstrate the silliness of the exercise, because that is indeed the correct label by the rules you're applying. But they're rules for the wrong game.

What are you trying to accomplish by labeling these alleged harmonies on each 8th note? What useful information or view of the work do you think this kind of analysis provides? That approach just obscures the significance of almost every note in the passage.



Bwv 1080 said:


> see
> https://www.talkclassical.com/73244-roman-numerals-amateurs-3.html#post2179160
> 
> This whole discussion illustrates the problem with Roman numeral analysis - it breaks down when things get more complex and results in arguing about trivia that has no relationship to the actual craft employed by the composer (again Haydn did not compose with Roman numerals).
> 
> Also the passage is contrapuntal so one can assume linear considerations played at least as large of a role as harmonic ones, who cares what the resultant harmony is in the middle of a two-part texture like bar 5? Haydn's decisions were first melodic and then following counterpoint norms with harmonic implications left perhaps as a tertiary consideration
> 
> But if all you have is a hammer (i.e. Roman Numerals) then everything is a nail


Whether or not Haydn "composed with Roman numerals" isn't relevant. Obviously he didn't. But he certainly knew about figured bass. Roman numeral analysis, augmented as it always is by Arabic numerals, conveys pretty much the same information as figured bass (and a bit more). To someone conversant with the Roman numeral approach, the passage's essential harmonic content can be summarized simply with just a few symbols. It's I-ii-V-I (repeated). This progression is not less important than the contrapuntal and linear aspects of the passage. It's absolutely fundamental to how the passage works. But it's so simple and standard as to be uninteresting and less worth dwelling on than the linear and contrapuntal elements. So, despite the quibbling, I strongly agree with the spirit of what you wrote.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> You are drawing the wrong conclusion from the discussion. There's no point to analyzing what happens on that 8th as an independent harmony at all. If what you say about the vi6/4 were true - it isn't - that would just further demonstrate the silliness of the exercise, because that is indeed the correct label by the rules you're applying. But they're *rules for the wrong game. *


I don't think there _is_ a wrong game here. There are only games that suit our purposes. We may legitimately have different purposes - or play two or three games simultaneously.



> What are you trying to accomplish by labeling these *alleged harmonies* on each 8th note? What useful information or view of the work do you think this kind of analysis provides? That approach just *obscures the significance of almost every note in the passage.*


The harmonic changes are not alleged, they are audible. What significance is being obscured by noting them? Is anyone in danger of not hearing counterpoint because they also hear harmony?



> *Bwv 1080* writes:
> This whole discussion illustrates *the problem with Roman numeral analysis - it breaks down when things get more complex* and results in arguing about trivia that has no relationship to *the actual craft employed by the composer *(again *Haydn did not compose with Roman numerals*).


I see no such breakdown here. The case is not complex and these are basic harmonic relationships. Haydn's "actual craft" needs no analysts sitting around picking it apart, regardless of their theoretical biases. He composed with notes and didn't waste time wondering whether the harmony or the counterpoint was more important.



> Also the passage is contrapuntal so *one can assume linear considerations played at least as large of a role as harmonic ones,* who cares what the resultant harmony is in the middle of a two-part texture like bar 5? Haydn's decisions were first melodic and then following *counterpoint norms *with *harmonic implications left perhaps as a tertiary consideration*.


"Counterpoint norms," in tonal music, don't function in a harmonic vacuum. Trying to assign "primary," "secondary" and "tertiary" significance to elements of music in which the elements are indissolubly wedded seems to me a rather idle game.

The harmonic movement from bar 5 to bar 6 of Haydn's trio from, the transition from the tonic through the dominant of the supertonic to the supertonic, is a significant harmonic event. It's what the music conspicuously does at its most dynamic moment. Acknowledging this doesn't negate the music's linear interest. In fact, it helps to explain why the lines contain the specific notes they do, notably the g#, the leading tone to the next chord which is not necessitated by any counterpoint but rather by the harmonic progression. If we're actually offering a descriptive analysis of the music, we need some way of pointing this out. Roman numerals will do nicely.

Squabbling over whether harmony or counterpoint is what Haydn was "really" or "basically" producing, as if he couldn't be thinking both harmonically and contrapuntally, or as if one factor should render the other not worth noticing, strikes me as an expression of theoretical bias, generally speaking (though I can see pedagogical value in urging students to avoid extreme granularity when they're just learning the basics so that they learn to distinguish larger from smaller units of structure). What we include in an analysis should depend on our purpose. If our purpose is to do a full harmonic analysis, specifying the tonal implications of a piece's linear relationships is part of the job. It's also just a lot of fun figuring it all out.

There are certainly cases of the convergence of musical lines that produce mere passing chords that provide "color" but play no "functional" (structural) role in a progression. That is not the case in this Haydn piece, where the progression is common, simple, and instantly recognizable, but above all essential to giving the passage shape and character. I hear these two bars as the chief harmonic interest of the whole passage, which is otherwise harmonically static, though melodically busy, and the brief dominant of the supertonic as a pivot that propels the piece along, as dominants and leading tones tend to do. Of course, it's also the most contrapuntally and rhythmically interesting part, but unlike others here I don't see the need to minimize one element in favor of another.



> But if all you have is a hammer (i.e. Roman Numerals) then everything is a nail.


We have to be able to deploy our hammer and our pliers simultaneously.


----------



## caters

EdwardBast said:


> You are drawing the wrong conclusion from the discussion. There's no point to analyzing what happens on that 8th as an independent harmony at all. If what you say about the vi6/4 were true - it isn't - that would just further demonstrate the silliness of the exercise, because that is indeed the correct label by the rules you're applying. But they're rules for the wrong game.
> 
> What are you trying to accomplish by labeling these alleged harmonies on each 8th note? *What useful information or view of the work do you think this kind of analysis provides?* That approach just obscures the significance of almost every note in the passage.


As I have said many times now, it explains why the tritone is not only present but resolving the way it is. Non-chordal tritones like in post #36 or bar 8 of this Mozart example I analyzed usually resolve by oblique motion, i.e. the bass of the tritone stays still.









But in the Haydn rondo, these tritones resolve by contrary motion to a sixth. And chordal tritones generally resolve by contrary motion inwards or outwards.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> I don't think there _is_ a wrong game here. There are only games that suit our purposes. We may legitimately have different purposes - or play two or three games simultaneously.


Mathematical rules are based on "1+1=2 is true". But if we accept "1+1=3 is also true" as another legitimate answer, all kinds of contradictions and paradoxes occur. That's why I asked you in the previous posts; whenever we find a vertical sonority containing [B, D, F, Ab, C], or [C, E, G, Bb, Db], for example, in the 18th century harmonic style, can we consider it a 9th chord?
The passage in bars 5~6 can be seen as "sequences" shifted by a 16th note. See how the sequences in the red rectangles (starts on D, ends on B, G; linearly representing "I6") are pretty much the same as those in the blue rectangles (starts on E, ends on C, A; linearly representing "ii6") transposed up by a step? See how G# acts as a non-chord tone? See how the sequence of the green rectangle is pretty much ii6 "resolving" to ii?








Now, do you see an applied dominant? Remember what a real applied dominant is.


hammeredklavier said:


> Here's a real example (of series of 'V6/5 - I's; except the 'vii°6/5 - i' in bar 232) of the sort of noteworthy incidents I'm talking about: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzmj8lRLHh0&t=12m (and at 12:41)


----------



## hammeredklavier

caters said:


> But in the Haydn rondo, these tritones resolve by contrary motion to a sixth. And chordal tritones generally resolve by contrary motion inwards or outwards.


They are still non-chord tones moving in contrary motion. Why make such a big deal over something so trivial, I don't understand. It's just a freaking "ascending fourth in scale accompanied by a one-note bass figure going down by a step". You're calling this pattern








"I6 - V4/2 - I6 - V4/2 - I6 - V4/2 - I6 - V4/2 - I6 - V4/2 - I6 - V4/2 - I6 - V4/2 ..."
and this








"ii6 - V4/2 /ii - ii6 - V4/2 /ii - ii6 - V4/2 /ii - ii6 - V4/2 /ii - ii6 - V4/2 /ii - ii6 - V4/2 /ii ..."


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Mathematical rules are based on "1+1=2 is true". But if we accept "1+1=3 is also true" as another legitimate answer, all kinds of contradictions and paradoxes occur. That's why I asked you in the previous posts; whenever we find a vertical sonority containing [B, D, F, Ab, C], or [C, E, G, Bb, Db], for example, in the 18th century harmonic style, can we consider it a 9th chord?
> The passage in bars 5~6 can be seen as "sequences" shifted by a 16th note. See how the sequences in the red rectangles (starts on D, ends on B, G; linearly representing "I6") are pretty much the same as those in the blue rectangles (starts on E, ends on C, A; linearly representing "ii6") transposed up by a step? See how G# acts as a non-chord tone? See how the sequence of the green rectangle is pretty much ii6 "resolving" to ii?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, do you see an applied dominant? Remember what a real applied dominant is.


Well, OF COURSE we're looking at sequences! What has that to do with the question of whether audible and visible tonal relationships within those sequences are "significant"? There _are_ such relationships. I would ask you to notice that the melodic bit in the red square is the upper half of the melodic minor scale in A minor, into which tonality it moves. G# would be a "non-chord tone" if it occurred in a G major chord. My contention is that we've left G major (I) and are in the transition to A minor (ii6) through its dominant, and that the lower line is exactly the bass line that belongs to that progression. Play only what's in the red square; it's quite obvious, and it's none the less real for happening on the fly.

The analysis popular here views these two bars as melodically active but harmonically static - in fact, at one chord per bar, more static than the preceding measures. This is absurdly untrue to the effect of the passage, in which beat-by-beat harmonic fluctuation and melodic activity reinforce each other to increase the energy, create expectation, and propel the music forward. I can't help feeling that people are listening more to their theoretical biases than to the music itself.

I'm far more interested in what I hear than in whether anyone thinks it's "significant." Arguing about that seems silly, but even sillier is trying to "prove" that what can be heard as something is "really" something else. These "somethings" are categories of thought and nomenclature, not things in themselves, and the object itself can be more than one "something" at the same time. If we think we have a contradiction the first thing to do is check our categories and remember that categories are all they are.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> They are still non-chord tones moving in contrary motion. Why make such a big deal over something so trivial, I don't understand. It's just a freaking "ascending fourth in scale accompanied by a one-note bass figure going down by a step". You're calling this pattern
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I6 - V4/2 - I6 - V4/2 - I6 - V4/2 - I6 - V4/2 - I6 - V4/2 - I6 - V4/2 - I6 - V4/2 ..."
> and this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "ii6 - V4/2 /ii - ii6 - V4/2 /ii - ii6 - V4/2 /ii - ii6 - V4/2 /ii - ii6 - V4/2 /ii - ii6 - V4/2 /ii ..."


Oh, come on! This caricatures the case. Unlike the Haydn, these endlessly repetitive patterns have no direction, no destination. They come from nothing and lead to nothing. They hardly constitute music. It's silly to analyze them at all. Better to use them as a finger exercise and not think about it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I would say some things are just not worth notating or pondering this much with Roman numerals; doing so would do more harm than good. Take the Cadential 6/4, for example; it looks like "I6/4 - V - I". But to have a clear picture of the harmonic function, it's just better to notate it as "V6/4 - 5/3 - I". This is sort of like what Eddie is suggesting.


EdwardBast said:


> For a Roman numeral harmonic analysis of that passage I would just write:
> View attachment 161870


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> What has that to do with the question of whether audible and visible tonal relationships within those sequences are "significant"? There _are_ such relationships. I would ask you to notice that the melodic bit in the red square is the upper half of the melodic minor scale in A minor, into which tonality it moves. G# would be a "non-chord tone" if it occurred in a G major chord. My contention is that we've left G major (I) and are in the transition to A minor (ii6) through its dominant, and that the lower line is exactly the bass line that belongs to that progression.


I6/4 "resolves" to iii6 in the first measure. -Yes or no?:


hammeredklavier said:


> "I6/4 - V7 - I6/4" (C major, 2/4 time
> 
> 
> 
> )


The tones "C, D, F#" that allegedly suggest "V4/2", and the "D, E, G#" that allegedly suggest "V4/2 /ii" horizontally in the Haydn simply don't have the same vertical harmonic weight as the "C, D, F#, A" of the "V4/2 /IV" and the "D, E, G#, B" of the "V4/2 /V" in the example below. How can we label them the same way? 




 0:36~0:43 (bars 11~13) 
"i - V4/2 /V - V6 - V4/2 /IV - IV6 - It+6 - V" (a real example of lines moving in contrary motion, forming chords with the harmonic weight to be labelled with Roman numerals accordingly.)


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I6/4 "resolves" to iii6 in the first measure. -Yes or no?:
> 
> The tones "C, D, F#" that allegedly suggest "V4/2", and the "D, E, G#" that allegedly suggest "V4/2 /ii" horizontally in the Haydn simply don't have the same vertical harmonic weight as the "C, D, F#, A" of the "V4/2 /IV" and the "D, E, G#, B" of the "V4/2 /V" in the example below. How can we label them the same way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0:36~0:43 (bars 11~13)
> "i - V4/2 /V - V6 - V4/2 /IV - IV6 - It+6 - V" (a real example of lines moving in contrary motion, forming chords with the harmonic weight to be labelled with Roman numerals accordingly.)


Huh? Nothing happens harmonically in the first measure.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> I don't think there _is_ a wrong game here. There are only games that suit our purposes. We may legitimately have different purposes - or play two or three games simultaneously.


I've asked what purpose Caters thinks is being accomplished by analyzing harmonies on the 8ths. I haven't got an answer that makes sense.



Woodduck said:


> *The harmonic changes are not alleged, they are audible.* What significance is being obscured by noting them? *Is anyone in danger of not hearing counterpoint because they also hear harmony?*


Something is audible, but it isn't harmonic changes, especially at a presto tempo. It's the coincidence of linear motions. Being able to tell a structurally significant harmonic motion, one with significance for progression, from linear surface details is an essential aspect of theory training. A V4/2 between two iterations of ii6 is inherently insignificant from the point of view of harmony. It's all non-harmonic tones and it's just clutter and distraction to record it as a harmonic change.

They're in danger of not hearing _harmony_ and harmonic progression because they can't tell these from counterpoint (local linear details).


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> The analysis popular here views these two bars as melodically active but harmonically static - in fact, at one chord per bar, more static than the preceding measures. This is absurdly untrue to the effect of the passage, in which beat-by-beat harmonic fluctuation and melodic activity reinforce each other to increase the energy, create expectation, and propel the music forward.


I think the "off-beat" setting (the shift by a 16th note, of the "sequences") and the tempo at which they are played might be confusing you. Sometimes the most harmonically (by "harmony" here I mean both non-chordal harmony and chordal harmony) interesting moment in a passage is the use of non-chord tones. Think of the opening of the slow movement of Mozart symphony in D, K.504.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> I've asked what purpose Caters thinks is being accomplished by analyzing harmonies on the 8ths. I haven't got an answer that makes sense.
> 
> Something is audible, but it isn't harmonic changes, especially at a presto tempo. It's the coincidence of linear motions. Being able to tell a structurally significant harmonic motion, one with significance for progression, from linear surface details is an essential aspect of theory training. A V4/2 between two iterations of ii6 is inherently insignificant from the point of view of harmony. It's all non-harmonic tones and it's just clutter and distraction to record it as a harmonic change.
> 
> They're in danger of not hearing _harmony_ and harmonic progression because they can't tell these from counterpoint (local linear details).


I have to admit, listening to the music actually being played again, that at "presto" speed there isn't much time for the harmonic implications to register. They're quite clear as I "hear" them in my head while looking at the score; the brain is agile on its own, but less so when the ear is involved and the brain has to process all aspects of the aural phenomenon.

At my age my internal presto isn't what it used to be.


----------



## caters

EdwardBast said:


> Something is audible, but it isn't harmonic changes, *especially at a presto tempo.* It's the coincidence of linear motions. Being able to tell a structurally significant harmonic motion, one with significance for progression, from linear surface details is an essential aspect of theory training. A V4/2 between two iterations of ii6 is inherently insignificant from the point of view of harmony. It's all non-harmonic tones and it's just clutter and distraction to record it as a harmonic change.
> 
> They're in danger of not hearing _harmony_ and harmonic progression because they can't tell these from counterpoint (local linear details).


Oh come on, Presto should make it even more likely to be rapid harmonic change than if it were Allegro, as Allegro tends to be more regular with things like harmony than Presto.


----------



## EdwardBast

caters said:


> Oh come on, Presto should make it even more likely to be rapid harmonic change than if it were Allegro, as Allegro tends to be more regular with things like harmony than Presto.


There's a common approach to this kind of analysis that would satisfy both your wish to label everything upon which a Roman numeral can be slapped () and those "people" who insist that only harmonically significant events get Roman numerals-those "one per measure" people. It would also make it clear that you can tell the difference, something for which there is currently little evidence. What one would do is to label everything in sight but then put parentheses around the labels of all vertical sonorities in a given passage that can be explained as local linear phenomena, that is, as collections of neighbor tones, passing tones, suspensions, arpeggiations of another harmony, or combinations of the preceding. After doing this, what remains outside of the parentheses will be the harmonies significant to the overall progression. I suggest you try this approach and have the work checked by someone who can guide you in the factors affecting such decisions.


----------

