# Random theory questions that don't deserve their own thread



## Dim7

During common practice era, was it outright rare to use a minor v chord in a minor key? Obviously major V would be used for cadential purposes, but otherwise?


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

Dim7 said:


> During common practice era, was it outright rare to use a minor v chord in a minor key? Obviously major V would be used for cadential purposes, but otherwise?


I can't point you to where it happens but if the third of that triad was approached downward and step-wise from the tonic pitch, and left downward and stepwise as well along the natural minor scale, it would sound pretty common place and you wouldn't bat an eyelid.

Something like: i - v63 - iv63 - V


----------



## Dim7

v63? iv63? What does that 63 mean?

edit: v63 in A minor would be B,G,E with B as the lowest note and iv63 would be F,A,D with F as the lowest?


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> v63? iv63? What does that 63 mean?


First inversion, usually written 6/3 or simply 6.

It stems from figured bass notation, where only a single note is written and the numbers show the intervals above that note to be played. A conventional root position triad would be 5/3, meaning a fifth and a third above the root (independent of voicing, so this could be a fifth and a third an octave higher rather than closed position).


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

Dim7 said:


> v63? iv63? What does that 63 mean?
> 
> edit: v63 in A minor would be B,G,E with B as the lowest note and iv63 would be F,A,D with F as the lowest?


g would be in the bass for v 6/3 in that key but you're correct with iv6/3. So the progression would have a familiar-sounding bass of a-g-f-e.


----------



## Dim7

Aegrhk of course. The third in the bass yes.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

This isn't really a question, but one thing that I wonder about is the ambiguous/ in between 3rd you hear in all kinds of music outside WCM and the music whose harmony evolved from it....it's so potent that you think orchestra composers would've used it ( or invented instruments that use it) in a way that's more mainstream.

That and bent pitches in wind instruments (obviously the trombone has been a popular glissando instrument since whenever), for how beautiful this effect is it seems like it's not used in contexts that it could be.


----------



## Rik1

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> This isn't really a question, but one thing that I wonder about is the ambiguous/ in between 3rd you hear in all kinds of music outside WCM and the music whose harmony evolved from it....it's so potent that you think orchestra composers would've used it ( or invented instruments that use it) in a way that's more mainstream.
> 
> That and bent pitches in wind instruments (obviously the trombone has been a popular glissando instrument since whenever), for how beautiful this effect is it seems like it's not used in contexts that it could be.


In much of WCM, especially 18th century the preference was for 'pure' sounding minor and major thirds because they sound in tune and resonate nicely. A third that isn't in tune acoustically can sound buzzy and jarring. The may be a preference in some forms of music but western tonality tends to favour thirds that don't buzz. And I'm not talking about jazz here. Obviously in the 20th century things changed a little, but before that it was jsut preference. People just didn't like pitch bending and thought it sounded horrible, it's just cultural taste.


----------



## Stavrogin

Wow, this thread is exctly what I had in mind when opening this section of TC.

As a music enthusiast totally lacking musical education, questions often spring to my mind while listening (or reading) so the availability of a place like this where some of them can be answered is definitely welcome.

The only problem is that most of my questions will probably VERY BANAL, so the probability to find someone willing to accept the effort to answer decreases  However, I will try.

So here's my first question.
Beethoven's Piano sonata op.109, first movement.
When does the exposition of the second theme begin? Where does it end?

I wouldn't know how to recognize "bars", so please refer to actual timestamps referring to this video: 




Thanks


----------



## Stavrogin

Beethoven's Piano Concerto 5.
The very first note of the piano. 
Listening to a number of different performances, there is a huge variety of how that note is played.
In some cases (like Kempff/Leitner, Gilels/Szell, Ashkenazy/Haitink, Fleisher/Szell or Perahia) it's barely audible and the piano part starts as a continuous flow.
In others (like Pollini/Bohm, Zimerman/Bernstein, Brendel/Masur, Cliburn) that note is quite stressed and "intense" as if it were the clear cut starting point of the piano part.
With all sorts of in-between nuances (e.g. Michelangeli/Giulini, Brendel/Masur, etc).

Now my question is: is there something on the actual score of the concerto that indicates how this note should be played and therefore which of the two extremes is "more correct"?


----------



## Mahlerian

It's not specifically marked with an accent or *Sf* marking, but the passage is marked *ff* and the pedal is requested, which will actually help to make all of the notes blend more. In short, I don't know if there's really an easy answer.


----------



## Stavrogin

Thanks Mahlerian.
If the whole passage (rather than the single note) is marked ff and the pedal is requested, it seems to me that a more "flowing" approach is closer to the score (contrary to my taste - I sort of prefer the "strongest" approach).
Why do you think it doesn't?

In comparison, what are the markings/accents at the very start of the sonata op. 111?


----------



## Mahlerian

Stavrogin said:


> Thanks Mahlerian.
> If the whole passage (rather than the single note) is marked ff and the pedal is requested, it seems to me that a more "flowing" approach is closer to the score (contrary to my taste - I sort of prefer the "strongest" approach).
> Why do you think it doesn't?


Because the pedal being depressed will make the notes blend, especially the low ones, so that the first one doesn't feel especially accented as such, you may think that a flowing approach is called for, but the modern piano is different from the action of pianos of the early 19th century, so Beethoven might have had something different in mind which performers might try to go for.



Stavrogin said:


> In comparison, what are the markings/accents at the very start of the sonata op. 111?


The initial note is marked *f*, and there are *sf* markings all over, with no pedal except at the arpeggio passages. It should sound forceful.


----------



## Balthazar

^ With regard to the Emperor Concerto, I would add that when the piano enters, the entire orchestra should still be playing their opening notes _*ff*_ (to be clinically specific, over the first 7 notes that the piano plays). This makes me think the desired effect is more of the piano line growing naturally out of the orchestral _tutti_ rather than a bald, independent, contrasting attack. It seems to me that had Beethoven wanted a sharp piano attack at the opening, he would have added a _sforzando_ or accent, or quieted the rest of the orchestra. He was not stingy with dynamic markings.


----------



## Stavrogin

^ Thanks to both Mahlerian and Balthazar, your posts have been very explanatory.


----------



## musicrom

Stavrogin said:


> Wow, this thread is exctly what I had in mind when opening this section of TC.
> 
> As a music enthusiast totally lacking musical education, questions often spring to my mind while listening (or reading) so the availability of a place like this where some of them can be answered is definitely welcome.
> 
> The only problem is that most of my questions will probably VERY BANAL, so the probability to find someone willing to accept the effort to answer decreases  However, I will try.
> 
> So here's my first question.
> Beethoven's Piano sonata op.109, first movement.
> When does the exposition of the second theme begin? Where does it end?
> 
> I wouldn't know how to recognize "bars", so please refer to actual timestamps referring to this video:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks


I can't tell if this question was already answered, but this piece is actually one of the ones in my Intro to Music textbook, and it says that the second theme starts on the sort-of arpeggio thing at 0:19. In the score, it's marked as Adagio espressivo.


----------



## Rik1

Stavrogin said:


> ^ Thanks to both Mahlerian and Balthazar, your posts have been very explanatory.


One thing to bear in mind, and sorry if this is blatantly obvious (if it is please ignore). As with all art, once you have your analysis of the score and you are armed with some historical knowledge (all based on your own research and what you've been taught) there is always some necessary intelligent and informed personal interpretation mixed with your own personal performance styles and preferences. But it always starts with analysis, knowledge (and sometimes first hand experience of how an interpretation choice will actually work in a performance context), and maybe experimentation which your persoanl interpretation can then follow from.


----------



## Stavrogin

Rik1 said:


> One thing to bear in mind, and sorry if this is blatantly obvious (if it is please ignore). As with all art, once you have your analysis of the score and you are armed with some historical knowledge (all based on your own research and what you've been taught) there is always some necessary intelligent and informed personal interpretation mixed with your own personal performance styles and preferences. But it always starts with analysis, knowledge (and sometimes first hand experience of how an interpretation choice will actually work in a performance context), and maybe experimentation which your persoanl interpretation can then follow from.


Thanks Rik1, what you say is surely important.
However, I am not a student, so I'm not looking for the "correct" way to intepret a score.
I am just an untrained listener looking for some "theoretical" criteria (to add to my personal ones) with which to appreciate different performances.


----------



## Rik1

Stavrogin said:


> Thanks Rik1, what you say is surely important.
> However, I am not a student, so I'm not looking for the "correct" way to intepret a score.
> I am just an untrained listener looking for some "theoretical" criteria (to add to my personal ones) with which to appreciate different performances.


Absolutely, thanks. As listeners, asking these questions will hopefully enrich our appreciation of the music.


----------



## Stavrogin

For my own "*Random and probably banal theory questions from an untrained listener*" series.

Is anyone willing to explain to me how do conductors signal the beginning of the piece so that they all can start at the exact same time?
I know it sounds silly. But coming from the non-classical world where someone just says or nods "one-two-three-four" or at worst "one-two-three, one-two-three" (  ), I just can't grasp what I see in the videos of classical performances.
I guess there are different techniques, but I never see anything that (to my untrained eyes) looks like a straightforward indication of the rhythm and when to begin.
Please help.


----------



## Vasks

There is a preparation movement of the baton/hand before the downbeat that starts the music. How fast or slow the prep movement is dictates the tempo


----------



## Stavrogin

Vasks said:


> There is a preparation movement of the baton/hand before the downbeat that starts the music. How fast or slow the prep movement is dictates the tempo


Ok. So the musicians always start playing at the downbeat?

Take this video (the start is at 0'24)
It seems to me that they start playing a bit _after_ the moment when Thielemann's wrists have stopped their downward motion.
Is this because the first note in the score is a rest?

(If it was me there - playing I don't know what - I would probably start at the very moment his hands stop ).


----------



## Vasks

Stavrogin said:


> Is this because the first note in the score is a rest?


Yes, the first note of Beethoven's 5th is an off beat, so they play after his downbeat.


----------



## Stavrogin

Vasks said:


> Yes, the first note of Beethoven's 5th is an off beat, so they play after his downbeat.


Thanks. This clarifies a lot.
Maybe everytime that I see the start of a work and I have no clue why and how they started all together but not together with the director's movement, it's because they start with a rest!


----------



## Vasks

Stavrogin said:


> Maybe everytime that I see the start of a work and I have no clue why and how they started all together but not together with the director's movement, it's because they start with a rest!


No, unfortunately, some conductors prefer the orchestra to react a fraction of second later than the downbeat. Here's a Wikipedia quote:

_"There is a difference between the "textbook" definition of where the ictus of a downbeat occurs and the actual performance practice in professional orchestras. With an abrupt, loud sforzando chord, a professional orchestra will often play slightly after the striking of the ictus point of the baton stroke"_


----------



## Johann Sebastian Bach

Stavrogin said:


> Is anyone willing to explain to me how do conductors signal the beginning of the piece so that they all can start at the exact same time?


Before the first beat, the conductor gives an upbeat. This movement is done at the same tempo as the succeeding beats, so serves as a reminder of the speed.
When conducting groups one's not used to working with, there may be two beats given before the downbeat (the equivalent to your "three-four").


----------



## Dim7

I think the first serial piece by Schoenberg (the last movement of op. 23) only uses the tone row in it's prime form without inversions, retrogrades or transpositions. Are the other pieces like that?


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> I think the first serial piece by Schoenberg (the last movement of op. 23) only uses the tone row in it's prime form without inversions, retrogrades or transpositions. Are the other pieces like that?


That's the only one I'm aware of. Even really short pieces like Stravinsky's Epitaphium use multiple versions of a row. It's one of the principal ways of helping to create variety.


----------



## Dim7

I think you could do quite a lot with only the original form. The waltzer from op. 23 hardly sounds monotonous.


----------

