A simple but effective example is in the opening of Torelli's "Christmas Concerto". A more complex example is in the second movement of Zelenkas 4th trio Sonata. Zelenka loved chains of suspensions.
Thanks so much!!! I'm no expert on this field BUT I know two amazing colleagues from the Basel gang (in this case David Mesquita and Florian Vogt) who made up an excellent interactive/sing-along website on multivoice vocal improvisation, where you can find a certain slot that discusses exactly what you're looking for: contrapunto.ch/tutorial/ There's as well some demonstration videos on that by Peter Schubert: ruclips.net/user/peterschubertmusicvideos
2 года назад+1
Almost the same thing Peter Schubert does in his videos is explained in painful details by Derek Remeš in the last chapter of his dissertation (section 3.3.5 Generalized Principles of Canonic Imitation). While prof. Schubert only shows us the canon at a fifth, here is the general mathematical formula for how to calculate melodic intervals that work for imitation at any interval. Bach would have hated this mathematical approach, but he also discussed pretty much the same thing in correspondence with his son Wilhelm Friedemann. Cool stuff, if you want to go into this rabbit hole...
I really like the visuals starting around 3:00 minutes. Music notation is also good to look at but seeing the scale degree numbers helps to hear/understand what you are playing the first time I watch the video rather than having to go back or stop the video and analyze or play it on my piano. Maybe I’m just too much of a novice and I need all the help I can get but perhaps it would help other people if there is slightly less staff notation and more scale degree visuals. You are so funny! You should’ve heard my laugh when I saw the box of knives! But I also appreciated the look on Clara Schumann‘s face which seemed to be saying, “to each his own”.
Hey thanks so much Angela, especially what you said about the visuals. I think as well this is a good way to visualize it... I use this kind of short hand occasionally to sketch out an improvisation. Thanks for watching and comment!
Thanks Luis, isn't it you that asked that already in another comment? What kind of Chaconne are you talking about, when you say "the Chaconne"? Because that makes me think of particular works - or do you mean that genre in general OR do you talk about the Lamento bass?
@@en-blanc-et-noir yeah, I am that guy 🙊. Well, I mean the genre in the baroque style. This form Is really good to start improvising or composing. What you think? 🎹🎼
OK I see... well, at the moment I'm not the biggest fan of that genre - of course I know there are greatest examples and I use some of those in theory class: Folia, Lamento and as well individual pieces like Bach's c minor passacaglia or Pachelbel's in Fm. I actually was kinda fanciing CPE Bach's Folia variations for a video as they stand out in the genre. But you're probably more interested in the craft-aspect of it. Usually I don't make much use of those basses in Partimento/improv single lessons neither... I dunno why - but I think the day will come, as I know it's fun to jam a little on those and they just like you said are definetely a good source for training certain skills and it's surely not a crime to work on this with beginners.
I actually never did Schenker, it's mostly uncommon in Germany - some specialists do it (e.g. in Munich and Mannheim) but at the universities where I studied this would have been absolutely exotic. :D But the term "outcomposing" is useful I'd say :D Cheers, thanks for watching and comment!
@@en-blanc-et-noir: That sounds quite bizarre to me, the greatest music analyst to ever live being considered exotic. Hopefully he will one day be celebrated and studied for his analytic methods, much like we celebrate and study the compositional skills of Bach today.
oha! Ok, to me it's kinda bizarre how every music student in America - no matter what kind of subject is their main studies - seems to learn this method. Besides that, I'm personally became quite sceptical towards methods that 1) abstract quite strongly from the original written score and 2) are purely designed for the sake of analysis without the purpose of at least trying to illuminate the process of creating the music that's been analyzed. At least I appreciate the horizontal perspective in Schenker but I can as well see how Schenker-analysis declined into a problematical habit in academia just like functional theory or roman numerals analysis - AND recently schema theory as well. Music theory as fetish - not as tool for cognition.
@@en-blanc-et-noir: Doesn't seem like people in the US are really that aware of Schenker either, sadly; but they should be, so if you encounter people who are, that's a good sign. As for your points, that seems like a couple of quite absurd claims, considering that 1) you in this very video "abstract quite strongly from the original written score" (all analysis ultimately does this, and when you examine even the most mature works of geniuses like Bach, you invariably find that the deep and fundamental structures Schenker outlined are always there at the bottom), and that 2) analysis and composition go hand in hand, the former is essentially the reverse process of the latter, and what Schenker does is quite literally exactly that: illuminating the process of creating the music that is analyzed. The only reason Schenkerian analysis declined in academia is because of how rigorous and brilliant it was; people who aren't as capable or intelligent are quick to decry those who are. Your last point about "music theory as a fetish instead of being a tool for cognition" misses the mark completely, and at least one thing is clear at this point: you were honest when you said you didn't know much about Schenkerian analysis, that much is quite obvious to me now. In reality, Schenkerian analysis is quite possibly the ultimate tool there is for cognition, because it reduces the music back down to the fundamental mathematical structure it arose from in the first place, which are actually the same universal fundamental structures humans use for the cognition of music to begin with. If you want to understand this better, I'd strongly suggest giving Richard Merrick's _Interference: A Grand Scientific Musical Theory_ a read, as it is quite possibly the most enlightening work ever written on the subject, being something akin to a bridge between the compositional genius of Bach and the analytic genius of Schenker, demonstrating very clearly how fundamental and universal mathematical relationships inherent to the nature of reality and perception itself shapes the composition and analysis of music.
When you compose or improvise, are you thinking entirely in terms of partimento or do you use roman numerals? What are you thinking about when you improvise? Great video, thanks
Heyho, thanks for passing by :D This is actually a complex question: in baroque improvisation I definitely don't think functional - so no roman numerals at all although I learned them like anybody else (or rather more the German equivalent). It's more like a mash up of shemata (e.g. that dissonance chain you saw in the video), cadencial patterns and planning via scale degrees (these circled numbers, as those imply certain intervals or chords above them). As improviser you have to rely on finger memory to have free head space to be able to plan ahead so a crucial strategy is to internalize as much patterns of as much building blocks as you can by transposing and varying them. Besides that I observe preparing and resolving dissonances while playing and when I'm "drowning" I just go for a 3rd or a 6th and from these intervalls there's always a way back on the track. Composing is really another question I'd say... although improvisation and composition do overlap of course. Composing - at least to me, I guess everybody is different - is more a thing of re-evaluating decisions, planning, constructing and realizing more imaginative ideas then one is able to come uo with on the spot. Answer alright?
Of course I think more "chordal" but not necessarily functional as a good deal of the material - although being stylistically modified - is still the same schemata like in the 18th century. It's a fact that the rule of the octave plays a way more important rule in classical and romantic styles then in baroque music. When improvising and composing I think a lot in binary rule of the octave modules like 7-1, 4-3 or 6-5 as these scale degrees imply certain chords, intervalls and suspensions above them and easily can be combined to a lot of different sequences. Then there is a field in romantic music that in the 18th century wasn't in the same way important as in the 19th: chromatisism. There are a lot of chromatic patterns that are just partly functional but rely on a logic that could be better explained through mechanical chromatic procedures. As you seem to be interested in the topic of roman numerals: my opinion on that is, that this is a tool created for analysing music and NOT to create music. It was definitely designed as a tool that should enlighten procedures behind the foreground layer, which it in some way does and I'd say roman numerals analysis does have a certain validity. The problem seems to be more kind of an academic abuse of the method: e.g. putting roman numerals below a circle of 5ths progression or a Romanesca is just a waste of time and doesn't iluminate anything at all. And there is more cases such a like. You won't get any near to a compositional style like e.g. Händles if you analyze it with roman numerals becasue even if you can theoretically apply the numbers to any situation correctly this doesn't show the procedures that the composer applied to create this music so it's kinda useless. What you can see for example in this video: ruclips.net/video/uetpanckGFk/видео.html is actually scandalous. Even this guy in terms of the method applies it correctly to the piece, the analytical outcome is just poor, he isn't even scratching the surface. That a Dotor of music theory (calls himself Doctor Watson) doesn't even come to the point to reflect on the method he's applying is kinda disappointing to me but the same time is symptomatic for big parts of the academic scene. I can tell from my own first hand expieriences.
@@en-blanc-et-noir is it really so bad? I'm not trolling, I honestly want to know. I'm reading "Music in the galant style" and I write the Roman numerals above every schema and every example and I often wondered why classical or baroque music is not analyzed like that more often. For me, a romanesca is I V/3 vi iii/3 - I can't memorize it otherwise. What am I missing? Is it too simplified? I "steal" chord progressions everywhere I find something that I like, I don't care if it's from Beethoven or the Beatles. And it's how I learned improvising. I have enough of them memorised that I can play for hours. Of course I don't sound Classical or Baroque, probably it's a cheesy mixture of jazz, pop and New Age. But for me, what counts is that I can express myself freely. Should I stop thinking in Roman numerals? Will it limit my progress later? If yes, could you make a video please on how to make the transition? I'm sure I'm not the only one having this problem...
Oh I see, I‘m afraid no. I even was browsing through second hand stores for it, that book you‘ve seen in the video is even just one issue of a multiple volume publication and I‘m really eager to see what the others look like as well!
Chapters in the description! Have fun!
En blanc et noir? Debussy reference?
Ha, no. Just related to the color of the keys...
if i could give a standing ovation thru the screen i would, thank you so much for making this!!!
Thanks, León!
i would too!!!
I find Your videos the most helpful in all RUclips.
THAT'S what a creator likes to hear :DDD
A simple but effective example is in the opening of Torelli's "Christmas Concerto". A more complex example is in the second movement of Zelenkas 4th trio Sonata. Zelenka loved chains of suspensions.
will check the Zelenka, interesting composer isn‘t he
@@en-blanc-et-noir It happens most clearly at bar 77 with a chromatic bass part. Zelenka is one of my favorites!
I can recommend Händel's setting of Dixit Dominus (Psalm 110), especially the section "De torrente in via".
Scarlatti convinced me to subscribe to your channel
One of my favorite youtube channels! Thank you so much for your videos! :D Greetings from Boston!
LOVE!
This video was unreal mate !!! I learnt so much!
Please keep these up!! 👌👌👌👌
Thanks for watching... :D
Do you mean baroque style tutorials or tutorials in general?
@@en-blanc-et-noir both. Tutorials and studies on harmony help a lot of people. Baroque or otherwise 👍
That's like having a magic trick explained, but in a good way!
There’s that super cool chromatic version of the 7-6 over the dominant pedal in BWV1000 (near the end.)
I looked it up: great example. :D
PARTIMENTO IS BACK
lol I see…. well, actually it was never really away
👏👏 thank you for sharing - my favourite channel on RUclips by some distance
:D LOVE!
Brilliant video! :D
Good stuff, as always! Love the intro :D
Happy you liked the intro!
I love your videos and enjoy them so much. I think it will be great if you can make a video about Canons improvisation please🙏🙏
Thanks so much!!! I'm no expert on this field BUT I know two amazing colleagues from the Basel gang (in this case David Mesquita and Florian Vogt) who made up an excellent interactive/sing-along website on multivoice vocal improvisation, where you can find a certain slot that discusses exactly what you're looking for: contrapunto.ch/tutorial/
There's as well some demonstration videos on that by Peter Schubert:
ruclips.net/user/peterschubertmusicvideos
Almost the same thing Peter Schubert does in his videos is explained in painful details by Derek Remeš in the last chapter of his dissertation (section 3.3.5 Generalized Principles of Canonic Imitation). While prof. Schubert only shows us the canon at a fifth, here is the general mathematical formula for how to calculate melodic intervals that work for imitation at any interval. Bach would have hated this mathematical approach, but he also discussed pretty much the same thing in correspondence with his son Wilhelm Friedemann. Cool stuff, if you want to go into this rabbit hole...
Maravilloso!!! Saludos desde Colombia. Ya soy tu nuevo suscriptor.
:D
Brilliant!!!
8:10 really got me.
Lotti did this a lotti too.
COMMON!!!
I really like the visuals starting around 3:00 minutes. Music notation is also good to look at but seeing the scale degree numbers helps to hear/understand what you are playing the first time I watch the video rather than having to go back or stop the video and analyze or play it on my piano. Maybe I’m just too much of a novice and I need all the help I can get but perhaps it would help other people if there is slightly less staff notation and more scale degree visuals. You are so funny! You should’ve heard my laugh when I saw the box of knives! But I also appreciated the look on Clara Schumann‘s face which seemed to be saying, “to each his own”.
Hey thanks so much Angela, especially what you said about the visuals. I think as well this is a good way to visualize it... I use this kind of short hand occasionally to sketch out an improvisation.
Thanks for watching and comment!
fucking fantastic
Maxi... was los? Hast du dich verlaufen? Danke fürs Vorbeischauen LOVE
@@en-blanc-et-noir Hatte Lust auf Crunch!
ja, versteh ich
Excellent video!! Could you make a video talking about the Chaccone? .🎹
Thanks Luis, isn't it you that asked that already in another comment? What kind of Chaconne are you talking about, when you say "the Chaconne"? Because that makes me think of particular works - or do you mean that genre in general OR do you talk about the Lamento bass?
@@en-blanc-et-noir yeah, I am that guy 🙊. Well, I mean the genre in the baroque style. This form Is really good to start improvising or composing. What you think? 🎹🎼
OK I see... well, at the moment I'm not the biggest fan of that genre - of course I know there are greatest examples and I use some of those in theory class: Folia, Lamento and as well individual pieces like Bach's c minor passacaglia or Pachelbel's in Fm. I actually was kinda fanciing CPE Bach's Folia variations for a video as they stand out in the genre.
But you're probably more interested in the craft-aspect of it. Usually I don't make much use of those basses in Partimento/improv single lessons neither... I dunno why - but I think the day will come, as I know it's fun to jam a little on those and they just like you said are definetely a good source for training certain skills and it's surely not a crime to work on this with beginners.
Luis... I changed my mind! I think there's gonna be a Chaconne video this year! It's actually a dope genre :DD
@@en-blanc-et-noir hell yeahhh!! , I'm glad to hear that!!
"And here is a famous *out-composed* original example [...]"
Sounds like someone has been studying their Schenker.
I actually never did Schenker, it's mostly uncommon in Germany - some specialists do it (e.g. in Munich and Mannheim) but at the universities where I studied this would have been absolutely exotic. :D
But the term "outcomposing" is useful I'd say :D
Cheers, thanks for watching and comment!
@@en-blanc-et-noir:
That sounds quite bizarre to me, the greatest music analyst to ever live being considered exotic. Hopefully he will one day be celebrated and studied for his analytic methods, much like we celebrate and study the compositional skills of Bach today.
oha! Ok, to me it's kinda bizarre how every music student in America - no matter what kind of subject is their main studies - seems to learn this method. Besides that, I'm personally became quite sceptical towards methods that 1) abstract quite strongly from the original written score and 2) are purely designed for the sake of analysis without the purpose of at least trying to illuminate the process of creating the music that's been analyzed.
At least I appreciate the horizontal perspective in Schenker but I can as well see how Schenker-analysis declined into a problematical habit in academia just like functional theory or roman numerals analysis - AND recently schema theory as well. Music theory as fetish - not as tool for cognition.
@@en-blanc-et-noir:
Doesn't seem like people in the US are really that aware of Schenker either, sadly; but they should be, so if you encounter people who are, that's a good sign.
As for your points, that seems like a couple of quite absurd claims, considering that
1) you in this very video "abstract quite strongly from the original written score" (all analysis ultimately does this, and when you examine even the most mature works of geniuses like Bach, you invariably find that the deep and fundamental structures Schenker outlined are always there at the bottom), and that
2) analysis and composition go hand in hand, the former is essentially the reverse process of the latter, and what Schenker does is quite literally exactly that: illuminating the process of creating the music that is analyzed.
The only reason Schenkerian analysis declined in academia is because of how rigorous and brilliant it was; people who aren't as capable or intelligent are quick to decry those who are.
Your last point about "music theory as a fetish instead of being a tool for cognition" misses the mark completely, and at least one thing is clear at this point: you were honest when you said you didn't know much about Schenkerian analysis, that much is quite obvious to me now. In reality, Schenkerian analysis is quite possibly the ultimate tool there is for cognition, because it reduces the music back down to the fundamental mathematical structure it arose from in the first place, which are actually the same universal fundamental structures humans use for the cognition of music to begin with.
If you want to understand this better, I'd strongly suggest giving Richard Merrick's _Interference: A Grand Scientific Musical Theory_ a read, as it is quite possibly the most enlightening work ever written on the subject, being something akin to a bridge between the compositional genius of Bach and the analytic genius of Schenker, demonstrating very clearly how fundamental and universal mathematical relationships inherent to the nature of reality and perception itself shapes the composition and analysis of music.
Boah ey...
When you compose or improvise, are you thinking entirely in terms of partimento or do you use roman numerals? What are you thinking about when you improvise? Great video, thanks
Heyho, thanks for passing by :D
This is actually a complex question: in baroque improvisation I definitely don't think functional - so no roman numerals at all although I learned them like anybody else (or rather more the German equivalent). It's more like a mash up of shemata (e.g. that dissonance chain you saw in the video), cadencial patterns and planning via scale degrees (these circled numbers, as those imply certain intervals or chords above them). As improviser you have to rely on finger memory to have free head space to be able to plan ahead so a crucial strategy is to internalize as much patterns of as much building blocks as you can by transposing and varying them. Besides that I observe preparing and resolving dissonances while playing and when I'm "drowning" I just go for a 3rd or a 6th and from these intervalls there's always a way back on the track.
Composing is really another question I'd say... although improvisation and composition do overlap of course. Composing - at least to me, I guess everybody is different - is more a thing of re-evaluating decisions, planning, constructing and realizing more imaginative ideas then one is able to come uo with on the spot.
Answer alright?
@@en-blanc-et-noir Thanks a lot for taking the time to write a response, this channel is a goldmine for improvisers and composers :)
@@en-blanc-et-noir What do u do for romantic (or later) improv, do u
use roman numerals then?
Of course I think more "chordal" but not necessarily functional as a good deal of the material - although being stylistically modified - is still the same schemata like in the 18th century. It's a fact that the rule of the octave plays a way more important rule in classical and romantic styles then in baroque music. When improvising and composing I think a lot in binary rule of the octave modules like 7-1, 4-3 or 6-5 as these scale degrees imply certain chords, intervalls and suspensions above them and easily can be combined to a lot of different sequences. Then there is a field in romantic music that in the 18th century wasn't in the same way important as in the 19th: chromatisism. There are a lot of chromatic patterns that are just partly functional but rely on a logic that could be better explained through mechanical chromatic procedures.
As you seem to be interested in the topic of roman numerals: my opinion on that is, that this is a tool created for analysing music and NOT to create music. It was definitely designed as a tool that should enlighten procedures behind the foreground layer, which it in some way does and I'd say roman numerals analysis does have a certain validity. The problem seems to be more kind of an academic abuse of the method: e.g. putting roman numerals below a circle of 5ths progression or a Romanesca is just a waste of time and doesn't iluminate anything at all. And there is more cases such a like. You won't get any near to a compositional style like e.g. Händles if you analyze it with roman numerals becasue even if you can theoretically apply the numbers to any situation correctly this doesn't show the procedures that the composer applied to create this music so it's kinda useless. What you can see for example in this video:
ruclips.net/video/uetpanckGFk/видео.html
is actually scandalous. Even this guy in terms of the method applies it correctly to the piece, the analytical outcome is just poor, he isn't even scratching the surface. That a Dotor of music theory (calls himself Doctor Watson) doesn't even come to the point to reflect on the method he's applying is kinda disappointing to me but the same time is symptomatic for big parts of the academic scene. I can tell from my own first hand expieriences.
@@en-blanc-et-noir is it really so bad? I'm not trolling, I honestly want to know. I'm reading "Music in the galant style" and I write the Roman numerals above every schema and every example and I often wondered why classical or baroque music is not analyzed like that more often. For me, a romanesca is I V/3 vi iii/3 - I can't memorize it otherwise. What am I missing? Is it too simplified? I "steal" chord progressions everywhere I find something that I like, I don't care if it's from Beethoven or the Beatles. And it's how I learned improvising. I have enough of them memorised that I can play for hours. Of course I don't sound Classical or Baroque, probably it's a cheesy mixture of jazz, pop and New Age. But for me, what counts is that I can express myself freely. Should I stop thinking in Roman numerals? Will it limit my progress later? If yes, could you make a video please on how to make the transition? I'm sure I'm not the only one having this problem...
Pedal A in the bass you say? (Guitarists ears prick up.)
I hope somebody has told GF you crave 24-30 note midi pedal board for X-mas ;) Auch ausgezeichnet video.
haha… gold comment😂
👏👏👏
Thanks for watching, Miriam!
Is that set of preludes/interludes available on IMSLP or anywhere online?
Hey Nick, what set of preludes?
@@en-blanc-et-noir it’s the book that the supposed Handel verset came from that has Der Praeludist on the cover.
Oh I see, I‘m afraid no. I even was browsing through second hand stores for it, that book you‘ve seen in the video is even just one issue of a multiple volume publication and I‘m really eager to see what the others look like as well!
Elision!
ELISION!
elisionnnnnnnnnnn