After watching several of your videos it is obvious that you are an excellent and accomplished musician. I too teach theory in the UK (ABRSM, LCM) but i cant use your videos to help my pupil's because of the language you use. In Europe we use roman numerals differently ( ie- Ib iib V7 I, or ic V7 i ). Cadences are taught as perfect (V I) and imperfect ( ending V ) ; but , and I know strictly speaking it could be argued they're not proper phrase endings, plagal and interrupted cadences. To be honest I like the system and language you use and i will watch all of your videos. You explain excellently and use great music examples backed up by you on piano. I just wish there was a universal language so as to not confuse my pupils.
Thank you for answering a nagging question I have had about cadences around 3:30 - Every example/tutorial I have seen shows the PAC end a phrase - but never ALSO starting a new phrase. This is a relief to learn!
It is pretty neat learning this theory. All my life I have never been interested in it until recently. I went over a lot of old songs I have written and it is pretty cool seeing how, without knowing this, my writing naturally went towards these cadences with the V I.
Ha-interesting! I wonder if it was a kind of pun on the way that some baroque fast (but not first) movements are preceded by a slow movement that ends not on a PAC but with a phrygian cadence?
Okay, this is the first video I've seen of this series, but thank you, this looks to be the exact kind of theoretical break-down of classical ideas that I was looking for!
Thanks, Mr. Seth, It would be appreciated and grateful to clarify three of my questions in this video. 1) At 6:50 seconds, in 8 bar the IAC part includes V7, and I chords. The first chord is written as the dominant seven chord which has C, E, G without B in the note sheet in F major. Is it not a Triad chord instead of a seven chord while B is not in this chord? 2) At 6:50 second, In the second chord in the 8 bar that is written I, as the tonic triad and only contains F, and A while C is omitted. Why and how is the C note omitted from this tonic triad? 3) At 6:50 second, the 11'th bar of the sheet starts with PAC with seven dominant with only B, and C. Basically seven chord in F major should include C, E, G, and B. How should we as a composer arrange a partial part of a chord instead of a full notes/octaves in a cadence? 4) At 8:32 seconds in this video, in the 3rd bar of the note sheet, the PAC part contains the four simultaneous C's (the 1st note of this trial) representing the trial C major while E and G were omitted. However, similarly at 9:13 seconds in this video in the 8'th bar of the note, three B's represent the dominant triad chord in E minor while ordinary notes on the dominant triad are B, D, and F. And similarly in the 9th bar in this sheet while three E's represent the tonic triad that is my question again. It seems that one or some notes in a chord will represent an incomplete chord and other notes are dissonant, But I couldn't realize how to keep playing some notes, and omitting some other notes will be arranged by composers in an incomplete chord is shown in many pieces in this video. 5) At 12:12 seconds, the first part of PAC is shown the seven dominant chord (V7), but the representative notes are E, A, and C. Whereas Basically the seven dominant on A major should be E, G, B, and D. Would you please explain it how this chord is built and why does it seven chord, not triad? 6) Similarly, at 12:40 seconds in this video, the first part of PAC is written the dominant seven chord in A major while the notes in this are E, A, and C. basically, the seven chord in dominant on A major constitute E, G, B, and D. I am wrong? Thanks in advance for your consideration, if you would mind answering them.
Will there a video in future about music theory specific to composing romantic music? Not as in just music from the romantic period, but you know what I mean, love kinda themes. I always wanted to try and make a fusion of a dubstep track and a romantic piece.
Thank you professor for these excellent lectures. I would greatly appreciate your insight on a problem I've come across. I am trying to make some basic 2-voice contrapuntal pieces - basically just first species counterpoint, but I wanted to throw in a half cadence for some extra practice. For one of these I had my piece in a minor key. I wanted the upper voice to end on raised scale degree 7 (R7) for the half cadence, since I am under the impression that half cadences in minor end on V, not v. In the buildup to the cadence, the lower voice walks down from 7, to 6, to 5, with 5 coinciding with the half cadence. Now according to the melodic minor scale, if I am heading down towards 5, I should use lowered 6 and lowered 7 (L6 and L7). But when I land on 5, I am at the half cadence and the upper voice is playing R7 as mentioned above. So what I end up with is the lower voice playing L7 as it heads towards the cadence, and then, almost immediately afterward when I do arrive at the cadence, the upper voice is playing R7! I am concerned that this might be some false relations problem. Perhaps these sorts of issues are sometimes unavoidable? Or is there something I am doing wrong? Should I instead use R7 in the bassline as it heads down to the cadential 5? That would go R7 - L6 - 5, leaving an augmented second between R7 and L6. I could go on about several other issues I've come across, for instance the different answers that might come from thinking in terms of "chords" versus looking at what each voice should do per the melodic minor scale. For instance if I go L7 - L6 - 5 in the bassline in accordance with the melodic minor scale, the chord progression I end up with is v - (x) - V, where x could be anything having L6 in it. This seems like an irregular chord progression but I only have 2 voices and besides, don't the rules of chord progressions come from the rules of independent melodic lines intertwining? Anyway I would really appreciate any advice. Overall, my problem is that I don't know whether to use raised or lowered 7 in minor keys when building up to half cadences. I also don't know whether every half cadence in a minor key should end on V, or whether perhaps some might end on v instead, which could make use of L7 allowable. Thank you for your time.
You might be curious to check out Video 28 on the "lament bass." It specifically focuses on the way composers in the 17th century onwards harmonized scale degrees 1-L7-L6-5. It's easiest to express in three voices. The top voice would have scale degrees 5-5-4-5 and the middle voice 3-2-1-R7. So yes, there's definitely going to be a cross-relation between two versions of ^7, and no it's not a problem. In the classical style, it's possible to harmonize other versions of the four-note descent idiomatically (i.e., 1-R7-R6-5, 1-L7-R6-5, or 1-R7-L6-5). But those combinations are much less common-especially the last of them. In no cases, however, would you end on a minor v triad-at least in the common practice style. Ca. 1800, landing on a root-position v usually means you've changed keys, with v being the new tonic.
I personally do hear what sounds like a double period structure in the beginning of the finale of Symphony no. 40. More specifically, it feels like a parallel period which is then repeated, again parallel, thus, double. Here is what I hear in the first 16 bars: Bars 1-3: Melody Bar 4: Enough dominant emphasis to count as a half cadence despite the tempo being incredibly fast Bars 5-7: Same melody but intensified Bar 8: Tonic Bars 9-16: Same as previous bars So in other words, I hear this micro structure: Phrase A HC Phrase A' PAC Phrase A HC Phrase A' PAC Which then leads to this macro structure: Phrase group A x2 before it goes on to a new phrase. But even Phrase B is followed by Phrase A' once again. In fact, a lot of the cadential motions in the entire movement are basically slightly altered copies of Phrase A. Modulations, again, primarily based on Phrase A. In fact, so much is based on Phrase A, that I think of it not so much as an independent phrase but as a motif in terms of how Mozart uses it, but structurally as a phrase, as I just described.
Trying reorient myself with this terminology since school days. I learned vii diminished in major or minor keys is an acceptable cadence, can’t remember the name, but it works in place of V-I or V-i. Ok, I have issue with the debate section. Secondary Dominants are like little cadences, but we use that description to distinguish them from REAL cadences. So the “half cadence” when approached from a secondary dominant IS functioning like “a cadence in the key of the dominant”. So at 14:00 for example, it’s viidim/IV->IV, so it is a cadence in key of subdominant. If he used A natural, then YES no cadence there, it’s just iii->IV hanging on IV no function. and 15:15 it works because viidim is sub for V, so i6->V4-3-->i. and 16:00 is V4-2/V->V6...or in the key of the dominant “V4-2->I6”. Perhaps the issue is with cadences that have inverted V->inverted I are an issue too? They better have the same issue FIRST, before worrying about how these secondary dominants are working so beautifully as “half cadences”. For the last debate, I guess it comes down to if it is ever accepted to end ANYTHING on something that is NOT a stable triad. I personal feel like “half cadence” is meant to be hanging or stuck or unresolved, so, the more you add to it the better.
That's great to hear! I love it when the videos have some bridge to viewers' real-life musical experiences. (I had this same experience in reverse last month, in fact: a viewer asked me about a certain Tchaikovsky piece he was studying, and I explained that it was already on my list of pieces to talk about in Video 30, which is in production right now.)
The biggest counterexample to the NoCadence-NoPhrase-experts is none other than Ode To Joy. What sort of cadence does the first phrase (supposedly) ending on E have?
@@SethMonahan ooops maybe i just misunderstood it. I'm a beginner so very much thanks for correcting my misconception! I have another question. Suppose in C major, common time, i go G E G A | C A G E | D E D F | E--- G E G A | C A G E | D F E D | C--- I would like to call it a Period form, but the first phrase ends on scale degree 3. Is it some sort of IAC or something else, because it does sound like a cadence?
@@chessematics Just on the basis of the melody alone, this feels like it should be a parallel period with an IAC on the first phrase and a PAC on the second. That type of parallel period may be less common than the one that uses a half cadence at the end of the first phrase. But it's definitely a thing!
@@SethMonahan thanks for the confirmation sir! I also was suspecting IAC as the E does imply a first inversion Tonic triad. I am actually composing a flute sonata, the last movement of which will be a Theme-and-Variations set on this theme. So this advice will greatly help me! Thanks again!
There's at least 1 Chopin waltz that I've analyzed that puts the definition of half cadence into question. That being his first waltz Grande Valse Brilliante in Eb op. 18 There seem to be 2 unconventional half cadences occuring, one on tonic and another on subdominant. I think I can explain the one on tonic pretty well, but the subdominant half cadence has me stumped. Typical definition of a half cadence is a cadence on the dominant which feels like an end, but incomplete, or as you say in your video "it leaves us waiting for the next one". Measure 90 of Grande Valse Brilliante has that tonic half cadence and so does measure 98. In both cases, a secondary diminished chord of V goes straight to the tonic, in this case Ab major. And in the answering subphrase, you have V7 going to that same I. And this combined with the dynamics means that the first cadence on tonic feels more like a cadence on V, a half cadence, than the IAC it would be if you went with the strict definition of half cadence. Measure 122 has that subdominant half cadence that I am stumped on. Why do I say subdominant? Well, the key is Db major here and look at bar 121, you have these notes: Gb, Db, Bb That's the IV chord in Db major. Now look at bar 122, what do you see? Gb, and Bb with a chromatically rising bass through D and Eb. And it can't be V7, because the only notes typical of the V7 chord in there are Eb which is on the third beat, a weak beat and Gb which is in the preceding IV chord. If it were a third inversion V7, I would be expecting this instead: Ab, C, Eb, Gb But there is no Ab or C, so this can't be it. The easiest explanation is that you have non-chord tones in the bass and it's still a IV chord. That's the one I went with. But this shouldn't be possible. A IV chord with a dominant function? And yet, I can't say that it's a PAC on the subdominant because there is a V7/IV, but it doesn't feel like a tonicization of IV if you know what I mean. And I can't say that it's a plagal cadence either as it isn't moving back to tonic from the subdominant. And the phrase starts on the dominant of IV and the answering phrase on the dominant of I so again, not your typical half cadence on V. And yet, it somehow sounds like a half cadence. Here's my harmonic and formal analysis of the entire waltz so you can see it for yourself. The tonic and subdominant half cadences I have marked with HC followed by a question mark. musescore.com/user/50070/scores/5833250
Glad you like the series! Unfortunately, though, there's no accompanying text. I primarily make these videos for my students, so the follow-up is mainly in-class activities and listening exercises. Sorry!
Hi Seth... I really appreciate your video presentations, as well as your academic writings. I have a question regarding the Mozart, String Quartet in Bb excerpt. Can m. 4 be labeled as a plagal half cadence? This is terminology I came across in Tonal harmony - Kostka/Payne.
Hi Dominick! I had to rewatch the video, because I though I'd actually *used* the term "plagal half cadence" with that example. Turns out I didn't...but YES: I would absolutely call it a plagal half cadence, and I'm pretty sure I've done exactly that in class before. (Though I didn't know Kostka/Payne came up with that. I thought I made it up!)
@@SethMonahan Thanks for the quick response. It's funny. The term is not used in the actual text. It is mentioned somewhat parenthetically in the instructor's manual in a vignette that is attached to an analysis for a quiz. I'm not sure why it didn't make it into the text itself. It's a good and healthy term... : )
So Inverted IV and V chords are avoided and not considered cadences? you didn't talk about Phrygian cadence, deceptive cadences like V to IV6 or V to vi, Hollywood cadence, etc.
I think defining phrases by cadences is a very 'mathematical' idea- it's easy to *exactly* define, but it misses an important structure that is pacing and melodic contour. I would prefer a definition that allows for phrases within a pedal tone context without resolution. Maybe I didn't put a cadence in there, but I've still given several phrases.
Great point. One sees coherent melodic ideas over pedal points all the time, and they would fail to qualify as "phrases" given the lack of bass motion. It's extremely counterintuitive to me-especially if the harmony over the pedal point is the sort of thing that would map nicely onto a well-shaped phrase.
Hi Dr. Monahan, in this video you mentioned the V or V7 in a half cadence is root position. If a non-root position V or V7 is used at the end of the antecedent phrase, then it’s not considered a cadence, right?
Good question, Chuan! I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a half-cadence using an inverted dominant. But it's rare. Indeed, it's rare even for the question to arise, since phrases don't often end an inverted V(7). But it does happen! See for instance m. 16 of Beethoven's "Appassionata" sonata. That sounds and feels to me like a half cadence-but the phrase ends on a V6 chord. Some analysts would reject that interpretation on principle. But for me that's putting axioms before experience, a move I find dubious at best. (I.e., if it feels like a half cadence, and your definition of "half cadence" doesn't allow it, maybe the problem is with your definition!)
Seth Monahan Yes, I totally agree with you there. I have seen so many people say something like "If you don’t have a root position dominant going to root position tonic, you don’t have any authentic cadence whatsoever." I don’t agree, as this would rule out a lot of examples of what otherwise would be IACs. If it sounds like a cadence and it’s where I would expect a cadence, then I say "It is a cadence, regardless of inversion or even the presence of a V chord." This means that all these, I would consider to be IACs if they are at points where I expect a cadence: V7 -> I with non-root note in the highest voice -> Root Position IAC V65 -> I -> Dominant Inverted IAC V7 -> I6 -> Tonic Inverted IAC vii dim7 -> I -> Leading Tone IAC Those people however that say that the bass motion defines a cadence would only consider the Root Position IAC to be a true cadence.
Hi Soham! You're absolutely right, and I left them out for a good reason: those aren't actual cadences. If we define cadences as "melodic/harmonic formulas that classical composers used as phrase endings," the only real ones are those included here (PAC, IAC, HC). The plagal cadence isn't really a cadence at all; it's a little stylized decoration that *follows* a phrase-ending authentic cadence. (Not a single piece of classical music I've ever heard ends with *just* a IV-I motion.) And deceptive cadences are, by definition, not cadences-i.e., they are cadences that should have happened but didn't, requiring the phrase to push forward until an actual cadence turns up. I talk about cadence "evasion" in Video 13.
Hi Shombit! That's not the right way to think about that chord. It has only two notes (F, A), but that kind of incomplete tonic chord is extremely common in this style. The C-F bass motion at the cadence signals clearly that this is a tonic arrival. There's no reason that a vi chord should ever enter our thinking.
“Omit root”...never a good idea when analyzing lol. Now in jazz you can do that stuff cuz you focus on one instrument vs what another might be playing...but in classical stuff you should take things as all inclusive...and also if it ain’t there don’t include it lol.
I guess you are asking this because it's a weaker cadence. Adding the 5th to that chord wouldn't make it sound any stronger, so the V7 vi "omit root" explanation wouldn't really explain it. It's "V7 I, omit 5". The 5th is the most common omitted note from a chord.
'is such and such a cadence?' To me, that sounds very much like a question of whether the definition is descriptive or prescriptive. I would imagine essentialists say it's prescriptive, but essentialism is demonstrably objectively false.
Incredible resource, thank you for putting this together.
You're very welcome!
@@SethMonahan thanks
Great lessons and a very good channel for understanding Western Classical Music in-depth. Enjoyed all the videos thoroughly.
Love from India 💌
After watching several of your videos it is obvious that you are an excellent and accomplished musician. I too teach theory in the UK (ABRSM, LCM) but i cant use your videos to help my pupil's because of the language you use. In Europe we use roman numerals differently ( ie- Ib iib V7 I, or ic V7 i ). Cadences are taught as perfect (V I) and imperfect ( ending V ) ; but , and I know strictly speaking it could be argued they're not proper phrase endings, plagal and interrupted cadences.
To be honest I like the system and language you use and i will watch all of your videos. You explain excellently and use great music examples backed up by you on piano. I just wish there was a universal language so as to not confuse my pupils.
Wonderful! I just found your channel, it is really helping me in learning how to compose classical music. Many thanks, bless you 💕
Thank you for answering a nagging question I have had about cadences around 3:30 - Every example/tutorial I have seen shows the PAC end a phrase - but never ALSO starting a new phrase. This is a relief to learn!
You're welcome-glad to help!
It is pretty neat learning this theory. All my life I have never been interested in it until recently. I went over a lot of old songs I have written and it is pretty cool seeing how, without knowing this, my writing naturally went towards these cadences with the V I.
JJFux did the same "joke" as Haydn but more subtle. The first movement of his canonic sonata for 2 viola da gambas opens with a phrygian cadence.
Ha-interesting! I wonder if it was a kind of pun on the way that some baroque fast (but not first) movements are preceded by a slow movement that ends not on a PAC but with a phrygian cadence?
Okay, this is the first video I've seen of this series, but thank you, this looks to be the exact kind of theoretical break-down of classical ideas that I was looking for!
your content is such a gem! please keep the good work! 💛🎶
I checked my phone at 14:04. Best homework ever!!!
Great videos, love your channel, thank you!
Thanks, Mr. Seth,
It would be appreciated and grateful to clarify three of my questions in this video.
1) At 6:50 seconds, in 8 bar the IAC part includes V7, and I chords. The first chord is written as the dominant seven chord which has C, E, G without B in the note sheet in F major. Is it not a Triad chord instead of a seven chord while B is not in this chord?
2) At 6:50 second, In the second chord in the 8 bar that is written I, as the tonic triad and only contains F, and A while C is omitted. Why and how is the C note omitted from this tonic triad?
3) At 6:50 second, the 11'th bar of the sheet starts with PAC with seven dominant with only B, and C. Basically seven chord in F major should include C, E, G, and B. How should we as a composer arrange a partial part of a chord instead of a full notes/octaves in a cadence?
4) At 8:32 seconds in this video, in the 3rd bar of the note sheet, the PAC part contains the four simultaneous C's (the 1st note of this trial) representing the trial C major while E and G were omitted. However, similarly at 9:13 seconds in this video in the 8'th bar of the note, three B's represent the dominant triad chord in E minor while ordinary notes on the dominant triad are B, D, and F.
And similarly in the 9th bar in this sheet while three E's represent the tonic triad that is my question again.
It seems that one or some notes in a chord will represent an incomplete chord and other notes are dissonant, But I couldn't realize how to keep playing some notes, and omitting some other notes will be arranged by composers in an incomplete chord is shown in many pieces in this video.
5) At 12:12 seconds, the first part of PAC is shown the seven dominant chord (V7), but the representative notes are E, A, and C. Whereas Basically the seven dominant on A major should be E, G, B, and D. Would you please explain it how this chord is built and why does it seven chord, not triad?
6) Similarly, at 12:40 seconds in this video, the first part of PAC is written the dominant seven chord in A major while the notes in this are E, A, and C. basically, the seven chord in dominant on A major constitute E, G, B, and D. I am wrong?
Thanks in advance for your consideration, if you would mind answering them.
thanks for the insightful and educational video
Very very good!
Thank you very much!
Will there a video in future about music theory specific to composing romantic music? Not as in just music from the romantic period, but you know what I mean, love kinda themes. I always wanted to try and make a fusion of a dubstep track and a romantic piece.
Thank you professor for these excellent lectures. I would greatly appreciate your insight on a problem I've come across. I am trying to make some basic 2-voice contrapuntal pieces - basically just first species counterpoint, but I wanted to throw in a half cadence for some extra practice. For one of these I had my piece in a minor key.
I wanted the upper voice to end on raised scale degree 7 (R7) for the half cadence, since I am under the impression that half cadences in minor end on V, not v.
In the buildup to the cadence, the lower voice walks down from 7, to 6, to 5, with 5 coinciding with the half cadence. Now according to the melodic minor scale, if I am heading down towards 5, I should use lowered 6 and lowered 7 (L6 and L7). But when I land on 5, I am at the half cadence and the upper voice is playing R7 as mentioned above.
So what I end up with is the lower voice playing L7 as it heads towards the cadence, and then, almost immediately afterward when I do arrive at the cadence, the upper voice is playing R7!
I am concerned that this might be some false relations problem. Perhaps these sorts of issues are sometimes unavoidable? Or is there something I am doing wrong? Should I instead use R7 in the bassline as it heads down to the cadential 5? That would go R7 - L6 - 5, leaving an augmented second between R7 and L6.
I could go on about several other issues I've come across, for instance the different answers that might come from thinking in terms of "chords" versus looking at what each voice should do per the melodic minor scale. For instance if I go L7 - L6 - 5 in the bassline in accordance with the melodic minor scale, the chord progression I end up with is v - (x) - V, where x could be anything having L6 in it. This seems like an irregular chord progression but I only have 2 voices and besides, don't the rules of chord progressions come from the rules of independent melodic lines intertwining?
Anyway I would really appreciate any advice. Overall, my problem is that I don't know whether to use raised or lowered 7 in minor keys when building up to half cadences. I also don't know whether every half cadence in a minor key should end on V, or whether perhaps some might end on v instead, which could make use of L7 allowable.
Thank you for your time.
You might be curious to check out Video 28 on the "lament bass." It specifically focuses on the way composers in the 17th century onwards harmonized scale degrees 1-L7-L6-5. It's easiest to express in three voices. The top voice would have scale degrees 5-5-4-5 and the middle voice 3-2-1-R7. So yes, there's definitely going to be a cross-relation between two versions of ^7, and no it's not a problem. In the classical style, it's possible to harmonize other versions of the four-note descent idiomatically (i.e., 1-R7-R6-5, 1-L7-R6-5, or 1-R7-L6-5). But those combinations are much less common-especially the last of them. In no cases, however, would you end on a minor v triad-at least in the common practice style. Ca. 1800, landing on a root-position v usually means you've changed keys, with v being the new tonic.
I personally do hear what sounds like a double period structure in the beginning of the finale of Symphony no. 40. More specifically, it feels like a parallel period which is then repeated, again parallel, thus, double. Here is what I hear in the first 16 bars:
Bars 1-3: Melody
Bar 4: Enough dominant emphasis to count as a half cadence despite the tempo being incredibly fast
Bars 5-7: Same melody but intensified
Bar 8: Tonic
Bars 9-16: Same as previous bars
So in other words, I hear this micro structure:
Phrase A HC Phrase A' PAC Phrase A HC Phrase A' PAC
Which then leads to this macro structure:
Phrase group A x2
before it goes on to a new phrase. But even Phrase B is followed by Phrase A' once again. In fact, a lot of the cadential motions in the entire movement are basically slightly altered copies of Phrase A. Modulations, again, primarily based on Phrase A. In fact, so much is based on Phrase A, that I think of it not so much as an independent phrase but as a motif in terms of how Mozart uses it, but structurally as a phrase, as I just described.
Trying reorient myself with this terminology since school days. I learned vii diminished in major or minor keys is an acceptable cadence, can’t remember the name, but it works in place of V-I or V-i. Ok, I have issue with the debate section. Secondary Dominants are like little cadences, but we use that description to distinguish them from REAL cadences. So the “half cadence” when approached from a secondary dominant IS functioning like “a cadence in the key of the dominant”. So at 14:00 for example, it’s viidim/IV->IV, so it is a cadence in key of subdominant. If he used A natural, then YES no cadence there, it’s just iii->IV hanging on IV no function. and 15:15 it works because viidim is sub for V, so i6->V4-3-->i. and 16:00 is V4-2/V->V6...or in the key of the dominant “V4-2->I6”. Perhaps the issue is with cadences that have inverted V->inverted I are an issue too? They better have the same issue FIRST, before worrying about how these secondary dominants are working so beautifully as “half cadences”. For the last debate, I guess it comes down to if it is ever accepted to end ANYTHING on something that is NOT a stable triad. I personal feel like “half cadence” is meant to be hanging or stuck or unresolved, so, the more you add to it the better.
9:04 I freaked out there because that is the exact same piece I’m working on so I knew EXACTLY what you were talking about
That's great to hear! I love it when the videos have some bridge to viewers' real-life musical experiences. (I had this same experience in reverse last month, in fact: a viewer asked me about a certain Tchaikovsky piece he was studying, and I explained that it was already on my list of pieces to talk about in Video 30, which is in production right now.)
Not sure how I got here. I’m not even studying music but curiosity got the best of me!
More classical music jokes, please!
@@thebeatcreeper lol
The biggest counterexample to the NoCadence-NoPhrase-experts is none other than Ode To Joy. What sort of cadence does the first phrase (supposedly) ending on E have?
I can't say I follow. It seems like a textbook half cadence to me...
@@SethMonahan ooops maybe i just misunderstood it. I'm a beginner so very much thanks for correcting my misconception! I have another question. Suppose in C major, common time, i go
G E G A | C A G E | D E D F | E---
G E G A | C A G E | D F E D | C---
I would like to call it a Period form, but the first phrase ends on scale degree 3. Is it some sort of IAC or something else, because it does sound like a cadence?
@@chessematics Just on the basis of the melody alone, this feels like it should be a parallel period with an IAC on the first phrase and a PAC on the second. That type of parallel period may be less common than the one that uses a half cadence at the end of the first phrase. But it's definitely a thing!
@@SethMonahan thanks for the confirmation sir! I also was suspecting IAC as the E does imply a first inversion Tonic triad.
I am actually composing a flute sonata, the last movement of which will be a Theme-and-Variations set on this theme. So this advice will greatly help me! Thanks again!
There's at least 1 Chopin waltz that I've analyzed that puts the definition of half cadence into question. That being his first waltz Grande Valse Brilliante in Eb op. 18 There seem to be 2 unconventional half cadences occuring, one on tonic and another on subdominant. I think I can explain the one on tonic pretty well, but the subdominant half cadence has me stumped.
Typical definition of a half cadence is a cadence on the dominant which feels like an end, but incomplete, or as you say in your video "it leaves us waiting for the next one".
Measure 90 of Grande Valse Brilliante has that tonic half cadence and so does measure 98. In both cases, a secondary diminished chord of V goes straight to the tonic, in this case Ab major. And in the answering subphrase, you have V7 going to that same I. And this combined with the dynamics means that the first cadence on tonic feels more like a cadence on V, a half cadence, than the IAC it would be if you went with the strict definition of half cadence.
Measure 122 has that subdominant half cadence that I am stumped on. Why do I say subdominant? Well, the key is Db major here and look at bar 121, you have these notes:
Gb, Db, Bb
That's the IV chord in Db major. Now look at bar 122, what do you see?
Gb, and Bb with a chromatically rising bass through D and Eb.
And it can't be V7, because the only notes typical of the V7 chord in there are Eb which is on the third beat, a weak beat and Gb which is in the preceding IV chord. If it were a third inversion V7, I would be expecting this instead:
Ab, C, Eb, Gb
But there is no Ab or C, so this can't be it. The easiest explanation is that you have non-chord tones in the bass and it's still a IV chord. That's the one I went with. But this shouldn't be possible. A IV chord with a dominant function? And yet, I can't say that it's a PAC on the subdominant because there is a V7/IV, but it doesn't feel like a tonicization of IV if you know what I mean. And I can't say that it's a plagal cadence either as it isn't moving back to tonic from the subdominant. And the phrase starts on the dominant of IV and the answering phrase on the dominant of I so again, not your typical half cadence on V. And yet, it somehow sounds like a half cadence.
Here's my harmonic and formal analysis of the entire waltz so you can see it for yourself. The tonic and subdominant half cadences I have marked with HC followed by a question mark. musescore.com/user/50070/scores/5833250
Great series of lectures! Do you offer this information in a book/workbook form? Thanx so much!
Glad you like the series! Unfortunately, though, there's no accompanying text. I primarily make these videos for my students, so the follow-up is mainly in-class activities and listening exercises. Sorry!
Hi Seth... I really appreciate your video presentations, as well as your academic writings. I have a question regarding the Mozart, String Quartet in Bb excerpt. Can m. 4 be labeled as a plagal half cadence? This is terminology I came across in Tonal harmony - Kostka/Payne.
Hi Dominick! I had to rewatch the video, because I though I'd actually *used* the term "plagal half cadence" with that example. Turns out I didn't...but YES: I would absolutely call it a plagal half cadence, and I'm pretty sure I've done exactly that in class before. (Though I didn't know Kostka/Payne came up with that. I thought I made it up!)
@@SethMonahan Thanks for the quick response. It's funny. The term is not used in the actual text. It is mentioned somewhat parenthetically in the instructor's manual in a vignette that is attached to an analysis for a quiz. I'm not sure why it didn't make it into the text itself. It's a good and healthy term... : )
My feelings exactly. You don't need it very often, but when you do, it's the RIGHT term!
Thanks again!
Thank you so much!!
So Inverted IV and V chords are avoided and not considered cadences? you didn't talk about Phrygian cadence, deceptive cadences like V to IV6 or V to vi, Hollywood cadence, etc.
Beethoven's first is even funnier because it goes I7 IV
I think defining phrases by cadences is a very 'mathematical' idea- it's easy to *exactly* define, but it misses an important structure that is pacing and melodic contour. I would prefer a definition that allows for phrases within a pedal tone context without resolution. Maybe I didn't put a cadence in there, but I've still given several phrases.
Great point. One sees coherent melodic ideas over pedal points all the time, and they would fail to qualify as "phrases" given the lack of bass motion. It's extremely counterintuitive to me-especially if the harmony over the pedal point is the sort of thing that would map nicely onto a well-shaped phrase.
wow top shelf content right here, sub
Hi Dr. Monahan, in this video you mentioned the V or V7 in a half cadence is root position. If a non-root position V or V7 is used at the end of the antecedent phrase, then it’s not considered a cadence, right?
Good question, Chuan! I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a half-cadence using an inverted dominant. But it's rare. Indeed, it's rare even for the question to arise, since phrases don't often end an inverted V(7). But it does happen! See for instance m. 16 of Beethoven's "Appassionata" sonata. That sounds and feels to me like a half cadence-but the phrase ends on a V6 chord. Some analysts would reject that interpretation on principle. But for me that's putting axioms before experience, a move I find dubious at best. (I.e., if it feels like a half cadence, and your definition of "half cadence" doesn't allow it, maybe the problem is with your definition!)
@Seth Monahan I completely agree. And that’s a really good example. Thanks a lot!
Seth Monahan Yes, I totally agree with you there. I have seen so many people say something like "If you don’t have a root position dominant going to root position tonic, you don’t have any authentic cadence whatsoever." I don’t agree, as this would rule out a lot of examples of what otherwise would be IACs. If it sounds like a cadence and it’s where I would expect a cadence, then I say "It is a cadence, regardless of inversion or even the presence of a V chord." This means that all these, I would consider to be IACs if they are at points where I expect a cadence:
V7 -> I with non-root note in the highest voice -> Root Position IAC
V65 -> I -> Dominant Inverted IAC
V7 -> I6 -> Tonic Inverted IAC
vii dim7 -> I -> Leading Tone IAC
Those people however that say that the bass motion defines a cadence would only consider the Root Position IAC to be a true cadence.
Very good program. thanks
What book do You recommend for barroco harmony??
You didn't mention other types of cadences, like plagal cadences, and false cadences??
Hi Soham! You're absolutely right, and I left them out for a good reason: those aren't actual cadences. If we define cadences as "melodic/harmonic formulas that classical composers used as phrase endings," the only real ones are those included here (PAC, IAC, HC). The plagal cadence isn't really a cadence at all; it's a little stylized decoration that *follows* a phrase-ending authentic cadence. (Not a single piece of classical music I've ever heard ends with *just* a IV-I motion.) And deceptive cadences are, by definition, not cadences-i.e., they are cadences that should have happened but didn't, requiring the phrase to push forward until an actual cadence turns up. I talk about cadence "evasion" in Video 13.
Typo at beginning: Classical "Cadenes"
6:50 In bar 8, could one say that IAC is actually a V7 to vi omit-root?
Hi Shombit! That's not the right way to think about that chord. It has only two notes (F, A), but that kind of incomplete tonic chord is extremely common in this style. The C-F bass motion at the cadence signals clearly that this is a tonic arrival. There's no reason that a vi chord should ever enter our thinking.
“Omit root”...never a good idea when analyzing lol. Now in jazz you can do that stuff cuz you focus on one instrument vs what another might be playing...but in classical stuff you should take things as all inclusive...and also if it ain’t there don’t include it lol.
I guess you are asking this because it's a weaker cadence. Adding the 5th to that chord wouldn't make it sound any stronger, so the V7 vi "omit root" explanation wouldn't really explain it. It's "V7 I, omit 5". The 5th is the most common omitted note from a chord.
'is such and such a cadence?'
To me, that sounds very much like a question of whether the definition is descriptive or prescriptive. I would imagine essentialists say it's prescriptive, but essentialism is demonstrably objectively false.
InTeResTinG!
sounds like it's one 8 bar phrase, to me at least
Nice but you go too fast...