Great channel and great effort and extremely helpful to me as a piano student of these chorale harmonizations! Is it at all possible for you to do another project notating the smoothest piano fingerings for each of these chorales for those of us who wish to play and perform these 389 chorales! I know that this is a huge favor to ask and would require tons of energy and time on your part!But what do you think?? Anyway I find this channel to be awesome and I am super-impressed with your effort and stamina to complete this harmonic analysis project! Just amazing!! But I need someone who can show me best fingerings for each chorale! Are you the man???
Hi David. This would be a huge undertaking, for sure. And unfortunately, I'm not a piano player, so this wouldn't be something I could do with any sort of confidence. I would recommend checking out Bach Scholar regarding playing through chorales at the keyboard.
What do you take away from this analysis? To me this begins to reveal aspects of the composition, but I still fail to grasp the essence of the music. In what way does this help you with your musical practice? I am new to analyzing music, though I have been playing for awhile now. I am interested in continuing to learn more about how to compose. I have learned that one step in this process is harmonization. It does help to learn from Bach's harmonization examples, but it's difficult to connect this with composition. I have seen another video where you do some statistics on certain scales he tended to use, is this what you ultimately aim for with this analysis, to see what was commonly done among his pieces? Is there anything else?
Analysis can take all different shapes, forms, and goals. My project took a more traditional approach where I look at harmony, mostly, but an analysis can be looked through any lens you want: historical, cultural, lyrical, religious, and many many more. Bach's chorale harmonizations make up a sizeable portion of the Western theory curriculum, so I wanted to take a closer look at the chorales to look for quirks that not only gave Bach his characteristic sound, but how they might deviate from the "norms of the common practice period" that we're taught in a Western theory curriculum. Beneath the surface level beauty of the music is a lot of organization, and I would argue, attention to detail (even though Bach isn't around for us to ask him about his intentions), so a harmonic analysis, of a Bach chorale in my case, could be aimed at trying to get a better understanding of some of the objective truths behind why a particular piece sounds the way it does. Is it a particular chord progression, or even a particular voicing of a single chord? Is it how Bach handles a modulation that wasn't originally implied by the melody? Was it an uncommon cadence? Analysis also has practical value in the sense that it provides an opportunity to practice reading, interval/chord/key recognition, and all the other mental gymnastics that can come with being a Western music. At the end of the day, I think analysis has potential to help develop a greater appreciation for the music. It's very, very, easy to get overwhelmed because of the many conventions that come with harmonic analysis like what I've done in this project, but the main aesthetic goal for the channel is to emphasize the fact that a great deal of analysis comes down to interpretation. Music is often ambiguous, even if it's highly structured, and your interpretation can very easily be different than mine. But, I would argue the most important take away is that getting caught up in the small details often turns people away from analysis and theory in general, when in reality all analysis comes down to is trying to understand the structure of a piece of music, no matter how surface-leveled or detailed that might be.
Just FYI, I understand where your teacher came from with the leading tones and chords that are meant to lead to each other. However Bach and most composers don't use chord 7 in root position because it emphasises the tritone. It sounds a bit ugly in root position so it actually sounds better in an inversion more typically first just because second has a different pull. Also the stuff about 1 to anything 2 usually goes to five and so on. That's the basics yes but not concrete and actually people get stuck thinking that way is the only way and it's not. Bach suggested that any chord can be followed by any chord if parts are written correctly. 3 shouldn't go to four by the logic I suggested earlier but actually is a very nice sound that is used very often.
Hi Isaac, thanks for the comment. Before I respond, I just want to say that this was my first video, and did not have the experience with Bach I do now. All things concerned, I think this is an accurate overall analysis, but I most certainly could've made more connections to Bach's idiosyncrasies had I analyzed this with the experience I have now. 1. When you say "chord 7," I assume your talking about the leading tone 🤔. From looking at all of the chorales so far, Bach uses vii in root position with quite a bit of frequency. Typically they are found right after a IV chord in first inversion because that creates 6,7,1 motion in the bass when it resolves to a I chord. As far as accentuating the tritone is concerned, regardless of how you invert a diminished triad, you're going to get a tritone 🤷. 2/3 of the triad are contributing to the tritone and the inversion of the vii chord is most likely going to correspond with how the previous chord (typically a IV, or less commonly a iii) is going to approach the next note in the bass. 2. You are 100% right about chords being able to go anywhere! Composers today don't have the same relationship with music that Bach did. Maybe a hot 🔥take here, but I would say that most music today is closer to modality despite showing a clear tonal influence. Do you use a iii > V > ii > I progression? Go for it! It isn't something you would likely ever find in Bach, but that isn't the point 😊. My analysis wasn't trying to critique the chorale because the progressions weren't normative 100% of the time, but rather challenged my expectations as a tonal work. If you take the aggregate of all of the chord progressions you find in Bach's chorales (probably his instrumental music, too, but I'm limiting it to the chorales because I can speak with experience), you will find mostly normative progressions. Typically speaking, this means chord progressions that consist of a pair of chord roots moving a 5th away (usually down), or a second away (usually up). This is just the nature of tonal music of the common practice period. Of course, not every chord progression is going to follow this. We see loads of progressions that go against the cycle of falling fifths, and progressions where chord roots are a third apart, but they are objectively less common than the "basics." 3. iii going to IV is totally a normative progression and is a nice sound (although I don't think the music sounding nice has anything to do with why we analyze or compose, for that matter). iii typically wants to go to vi, but it makes sense moving to IV as well (Coincidentally IV and vi are mostly the same notes ([4, 6, 1] and [6,1,3])). However, I'm not 100% sure about "the logic [you] suggested earlier but actually is a very nice sound that is used very often." In general, iii is probably the most uncommonly used chord in major keys. You could go through all of my videos and verify this, however this chorale is a pretty good illustration about how often iii gets used in comparison to other chords. In this chorale, iii appears twice out of a total of 58 chords (I counted every chord + chords that occurred as subdivisions of the harmonic rhythm). This chorale is particularly interesting because we see iii go to unlikely destinations in both progressions it occurs. The first is V, which is interesting because chord progressions that consist of roots that are a third apart are less common that other progressions. The second is ii, which is interesting because we would expect vi or, like you said, IV. Granted, the ii chord is in first inversion, so it's even more like a IV chord in this context that it already is. At the end of the day, possibly another 🔥hot take here, using Bach as a primer for how to compose music that is relevant today isn't all that sensical. Writing tonal fugues and harmonizing tonal chorales is fun though. Not to mention the fact that it's a great way to demonstrate that you understand how the music is composed.
@@forrestmusictheory He loved ii7 in first inversion especially going to 5 or V7 to one. If you watch Music matters Bach chorale analysis he'll explain better what I was saying. I feel you didn't properly understand what I am saying. Chord 7 has the leading tone in it yes but you build chords based off every note in the scale so chord seven is diminished. Yes chord 7 has a tritone. first inversion sounds better than root position. I am honestly very shocked if he used a chord 7 in root position. Diminished 7ths yes absolutely. What I mean by my logic is the circle of fifths is a basic chord progression chart yes but to follow that as a manner of chord progression I don't agree with. 6,4 are very similar so are 1 and 6 that's why they are strong progressions. Common notes are ways to bind chord progressions together. it is probably just two different types of teaching but it sounds to structured and breaking convention goes to a whole new level with the way your taught because your convention is far stricter if you restrict yourself to the circle of fifths or where chords should lead based on that like 2 going to 5. 2, 7 in first inversion to 1 is good. I find 3 to 7 in first inversion is alright. Contrary motion in the bass to the sop is also good. the bass being disjunct isn't always the best but scale movement is. (some disjunct is good) Look we all love writing and I have a brass band piece that has just been published so I compose a lot. I would seriously recommend watching Music matters and see his analysis on bach chorales.
@@isaacshaw1596 Hey Isaac, I'm definitely going to have to check out this Music Matters video because of your suggestion. 1) I think it's pretty ironic to say that my education is more "structured" that perhaps the one you've received/are receiving when also saying things like "first inversion sounds better than root position." Isn't something sounding good subjective? Why should someone's teachings tell me how to feel. First inversion vii chords are far more common than root position, but root position vii chords occur more than a handful of times in the chorales. Just taking a quick glance, BWV 1, BWV 8, BWV 14, and BWV 19 are just a few of the chorales that have root position vii chords in them. Most cases, they are subdivided chord progressions, but root position nonetheless. I have videos analyzing them, too! As far as "restricting myself to circle of fifths progressions," I'm not. At least, I don't think I am, and if it's coming across that way here, it definitely isn't in my later videos. Just by virtue of tertian harmony in the functional context that Bach and most other common practice period composers are using it, falling fifths progressions are the most common progressions you will find in Bach's chorales. This is a FACT. It has nothing to do with my preference, or your preference. It's just how it is, and me stating that a chord progression not following the cycle of falling fifths is unusual is merely a statement, not an opinion . 2) As far as "breaking convention" is concerned, Western Classical music has been in a period of post-tonality for well over 100 years, and the conventions that are being broken nowadays are far, far, removed from choosing what chords follow one another in a diatonic scale. I'm sure you're a talented composer in your own right. I compose quite a bit, too, as I am currently pursuing my PhD in composition 😃, and none of this analysis is actively informing the way that I write. You can check out my portfolio on my website. I compose algorithmic/interactive web-based music. I analyze because I'm passionate about Bach's music, and I'm trying to get closer to his music from a musicological and theoretical perspective. I think using words like "sounds good" are largely unproductive in music theory education. If it sounds good to you, that's one thing... But making a universal claim that it sounds good isn't fair. I've analyzed a ton of music that I don't think sounds all that great. Is it any less valuable?
@@forrestmusictheory No, I am saying it sounds better in inversion. I am not saying it shouldn't be in root position. I have no doubt that he used the chord in root position. I am shocked because really diminished chords (tend) to work better in inversion. I imagine it will work well in root position. Convention such as double major thirds in four part harmony. Breaking convention yes people have done many things in modern day that you could 'breaks convention.' I completely understand where you come from. I am just trying to spin it. falling fifths progressions are strong and he probably does but I don't like doing it that way sounds too restrictive. Look it doesn't matter what I say it's not going to change anything however, the way USA teaches theory as apposed to the British way is very different. Circle of fifths is just a start. Where you got Sounds good gives music value from I don't know. I said things sound better in these inversions typically to be clear. I say usually. It's not literal. He breaks convention FACT if you go by your logic. He came from a strict period and was the start of the bridge to modern day music. I do 121 mentoring and love seeing peoples work and see how they compose and see what they do. I completely open to all styles and ways of writing. Bach is probably one of the best composers in history. I have no place to critique him but value in music comes from what you like. This is all opinion there is very little in music in the grand scheme of things that are facts. I am not going to name all the chorales that he doubles a major third or crosses parts or doesn't follow the pattern of fifths. I honestly don't care I am saying it sounds restrictive. I never said it was. I was also saying what you are now saying that music is expansive so I don't really understand what you are arguing against.
@forrestmusictheory no problem! Also I think I caught some other things. I think the vii° in the 3rd bar before the first cadence should be vii°6 and also in the second line, 3rd bar, there should be brackets on the A in alto and under the C in soprano because they are accented passing notes and the F in alto is the chord tone. In the bar with the long descending 8th note bass line before the cadence point, the brackets should be around the F in alto because it is suspended and the E following it is the chord tone of the vi chord. There should also be brackets around the G in bass in the 3rd last bar because the proceeding F is the chord tone. Sorry to be such a pain, I'm a very pedantic person😅! I just had a question, why is it V7/IV if the root of the chord is G? Also is a V7/IV the same as V42? Thanks again for all the harmonisations!
@@EthanNistor Hi again: The viio chord is analyzed as a viio6. The 6 is just tiny, sorry. I only used cut outs from my Riemenschneider for the first 15 episodes or so, so there isn't a ton of room for roman numerals. The A in the alto in the third bar is a 7-6 suspension, so there should be a marking around it. Good catch! I mismarked the non-chord tone under the C in the soprano. The G should be marked because it's another suspension (4-3). The F# in the Alto should be marked as a 9-8 suspension, you're right; however Bach changes bass, and we see parallel ninths. So even if we pretend that E is a chord tone, Bach subverts the resolution with the change in the bass. This could be analyzed as a vi42 chord if this was the case. You're not a pain at all. Thank you for your insightful comments. V7/IV implies that the chord is functioning as IV's dominant. I don't think this is the best example to explain secondary dominance, because Bach is doing something I would start calling "subdominant cadences" once I started picking up on it in later videos (it takes time to see patterns and routines in anyone's work), but we see Bach take our tonic triad and morph it into the dominant of C right before the cadence. Our expectation is for I to function like a tonic, especially after being stressed for the majority of a bar like he's doing here. V/IV and V42 aren't the same thing. V42 is a dominant seventh chord in third inversion, V7/IV is a root position dominant chord that tonicizes the subdominant without fully modulating. In this case, I don't think there's a super straightforward analysis as far as the modulation is concerned, because Bach doesn't really prepare it before he cadences, so I analyzed it in what made sense to me. It's pretty unusual for modulations to occur over a secondary dominant, in general.
Hi great video! I do have a question, at 19:35 you decided to modulate to C. Would it make sense to just stay in the key of G and label a V7/IV going to IV making it a plagal cadence? Let me know if I’m missing something. Very helpful video thanks!
It would make so much sense for You to play these chord's progressions, as You analyze them with numbers. The analysis represents one's thinking about the music , but the music itself always supersedes the analysis. IE what chord was he "intending us to hear"?..... the answer is not a chord , but the music stands alone as his INTENTION, SO the combination of ALL THE NOTES in the rhythm as written, as they impinge on the internal ear including where they have come from and where they are going to.
Thank you for your beautiful and insightful response! I wish I was technically proficient enough to play through these chords at the keyboard, but I'm not. Bach wasn't thinking in terms of roman numerals, but he was thinking in terms of function. Most likely not in the same way that we do after having analyzed his music for hundreds of years. Nevertheless, Western European Art Music of his time was largely defined by how harmony conveyed a sense of narrative,. Of course, Bach had his own beautiful relationship with the music he composed, but there were harmonic conventions he followed, as well. And while he didn't use roman numerals to do a shorthand harmonic analysis of the music he studied, he was aware of a chord's innate features tended for it to go in a particular direction. Bach wrote music at an interesting intersection in the history of European composition. Although the music is mostly homorhythmic from a harmonic standpoint, the music is still highly contrapuntal; however, by the time Bach was around and in his heyday, music was conceived just as much vertically as it was horizontally. Of course it's meant to be experienced as a complete experience! That being said, my analysis is just one particular lens to look at this music through!
hello, at 15:57, I would have said that the D chord is a +6 and not a 4 3, since it is on the fifth degree. The sixth Fsharp is the "sensible" of the G tone, (I'm french and i don't know how to say it in English, the last note of the major scale) Am I wrong here ?
i am realizing that i may be using a different system than yours. I have been taught to label a dominant chord with the seventh 7+, and then the inversion, 6/5, 6+ and 4+ in order to differenciate the dominant chord to other seventh chords. (sorry for my music theory english), thanks for your work
@@PartimentoFR Hello! 4/3 is shorthand for 6/4/3 because A to F# is a 6th, A to D is a 4th, and A to C# is a third. However, because an inverted 7th chord will always produce a 6th as its outer interval, it is often omitted. I think you might be confused in this case because D is the fifth degree of G major, however the fifth of the D major chord, A, is in the bass. Meaning, there are two fifths involved, one chordal and one scalar. I think the "sensible" you were referring to is the "leading tone" in English. The seventh scale degree? I can see how 7+ would be a logical analysis (perhaps it is shorthand for something like 7/3# or 7/3+), however the uppercase V already suggests that the triad has a major third from the bass.
Hi! Yes, if we look at beat two of the third complete measure, we do have a Cmaj7/B, which could be analyzed by just changing the figured bass to 4/3. No need to rewrite the roman numeral. When I look at this chord progression, I look at the B in the bass and the E in the alto as accented non-chord tones that proceed the F#dim/A. J.S. Bach tends to get the most contrapuntal during his cadences, and I don't feel that the B in the bass really contributes that much to the chord progression, as a whole, so I mark it as an accented passing tone, along with the E in the alto, for this reason. This is just my outlook on the chord progression, and I think that whether you choose to analyze that chord or not, they are both correct analyses. Thank you for your feedback!
I'm studying this right now so this channel is a real treat for me - thanks for these uploads.
Great channel and great effort and extremely helpful to me as a piano student of these chorale harmonizations! Is it at all possible for you to do another project notating the smoothest piano fingerings for each of these chorales for those of us who wish to play and perform these 389 chorales! I know that this is a huge favor to ask and would require tons of energy and time on your part!But what do you think?? Anyway I find this channel to be awesome and I am super-impressed with your effort and stamina to complete this harmonic analysis project! Just amazing!! But I need someone who can show me best fingerings for each chorale! Are you the man???
Hi David. This would be a huge undertaking, for sure. And unfortunately, I'm not a piano player, so this wouldn't be something I could do with any sort of confidence. I would recommend checking out Bach Scholar regarding playing through chorales at the keyboard.
Ha, G major. The answer was right in front of you the whole time!
What do you take away from this analysis? To me this begins to reveal aspects of the composition, but I still fail to grasp the essence of the music. In what way does this help you with your musical practice? I am new to analyzing music, though I have been playing for awhile now. I am interested in continuing to learn more about how to compose. I have learned that one step in this process is harmonization. It does help to learn from Bach's harmonization examples, but it's difficult to connect this with composition. I have seen another video where you do some statistics on certain scales he tended to use, is this what you ultimately aim for with this analysis, to see what was commonly done among his pieces? Is there anything else?
Analysis can take all different shapes, forms, and goals. My project took a more traditional approach where I look at harmony, mostly, but an analysis can be looked through any lens you want: historical, cultural, lyrical, religious, and many many more. Bach's chorale harmonizations make up a sizeable portion of the Western theory curriculum, so I wanted to take a closer look at the chorales to look for quirks that not only gave Bach his characteristic sound, but how they might deviate from the "norms of the common practice period" that we're taught in a Western theory curriculum.
Beneath the surface level beauty of the music is a lot of organization, and I would argue, attention to detail (even though Bach isn't around for us to ask him about his intentions), so a harmonic analysis, of a Bach chorale in my case, could be aimed at trying to get a better understanding of some of the objective truths behind why a particular piece sounds the way it does. Is it a particular chord progression, or even a particular voicing of a single chord? Is it how Bach handles a modulation that wasn't originally implied by the melody? Was it an uncommon cadence?
Analysis also has practical value in the sense that it provides an opportunity to practice reading, interval/chord/key recognition, and all the other mental gymnastics that can come with being a Western music.
At the end of the day, I think analysis has potential to help develop a greater appreciation for the music. It's very, very, easy to get overwhelmed because of the many conventions that come with harmonic analysis like what I've done in this project, but the main aesthetic goal for the channel is to emphasize the fact that a great deal of analysis comes down to interpretation. Music is often ambiguous, even if it's highly structured, and your interpretation can very easily be different than mine. But, I would argue the most important take away is that getting caught up in the small details often turns people away from analysis and theory in general, when in reality all analysis comes down to is trying to understand the structure of a piece of music, no matter how surface-leveled or detailed that might be.
Just FYI, I understand where your teacher came from with the leading tones and chords that are meant to lead to each other. However Bach and most composers don't use chord 7 in root position because it emphasises the tritone. It sounds a bit ugly in root position so it actually sounds better in an inversion more typically first just because second has a different pull. Also the stuff about 1 to anything 2 usually goes to five and so on. That's the basics yes but not concrete and actually people get stuck thinking that way is the only way and it's not. Bach suggested that any chord can be followed by any chord if parts are written correctly. 3 shouldn't go to four by the logic I suggested earlier but actually is a very nice sound that is used very often.
Hi Isaac, thanks for the comment.
Before I respond, I just want to say that this was my first video, and did not have the experience with Bach I do now. All things concerned, I think this is an accurate overall analysis, but I most certainly could've made more connections to Bach's idiosyncrasies had I analyzed this with the experience I have now.
1. When you say "chord 7," I assume your talking about the leading tone 🤔. From looking at all of the chorales so far, Bach uses vii in root position with quite a bit of frequency. Typically they are found right after a IV chord in first inversion because that creates 6,7,1 motion in the bass when it resolves to a I chord. As far as accentuating the tritone is concerned, regardless of how you invert a diminished triad, you're going to get a tritone 🤷. 2/3 of the triad are contributing to the tritone and the inversion of the vii chord is most likely going to correspond with how the previous chord (typically a IV, or less commonly a iii) is going to approach the next note in the bass.
2. You are 100% right about chords being able to go anywhere! Composers today don't have the same relationship with music that Bach did. Maybe a hot 🔥take here, but I would say that most music today is closer to modality despite showing a clear tonal influence. Do you use a iii > V > ii > I progression? Go for it! It isn't something you would likely ever find in Bach, but that isn't the point 😊. My analysis wasn't trying to critique the chorale because the progressions weren't normative 100% of the time, but rather challenged my expectations as a tonal work. If you take the aggregate of all of the chord progressions you find in Bach's chorales (probably his instrumental music, too, but I'm limiting it to the chorales because I can speak with experience), you will find mostly normative progressions. Typically speaking, this means chord progressions that consist of a pair of chord roots moving a 5th away (usually down), or a second away (usually up). This is just the nature of tonal music of the common practice period. Of course, not every chord progression is going to follow this. We see loads of progressions that go against the cycle of falling fifths, and progressions where chord roots are a third apart, but they are objectively less common than the "basics."
3. iii going to IV is totally a normative progression and is a nice sound (although I don't think the music sounding nice has anything to do with why we analyze or compose, for that matter). iii typically wants to go to vi, but it makes sense moving to IV as well (Coincidentally IV and vi are mostly the same notes ([4, 6, 1] and [6,1,3])). However, I'm not 100% sure about "the logic [you] suggested earlier but actually is a very nice sound that is used very often." In general, iii is probably the most uncommonly used chord in major keys. You could go through all of my videos and verify this, however this chorale is a pretty good illustration about how often iii gets used in comparison to other chords. In this chorale, iii appears twice out of a total of 58 chords (I counted every chord + chords that occurred as subdivisions of the harmonic rhythm). This chorale is particularly interesting because we see iii go to unlikely destinations in both progressions it occurs. The first is V, which is interesting because chord progressions that consist of roots that are a third apart are less common that other progressions. The second is ii, which is interesting because we would expect vi or, like you said, IV. Granted, the ii chord is in first inversion, so it's even more like a IV chord in this context that it already is.
At the end of the day, possibly another 🔥hot take here, using Bach as a primer for how to compose music that is relevant today isn't all that sensical. Writing tonal fugues and harmonizing tonal chorales is fun though. Not to mention the fact that it's a great way to demonstrate that you understand how the music is composed.
@@forrestmusictheory He loved ii7 in first inversion especially going to 5 or V7 to one. If you watch Music matters Bach chorale analysis he'll explain better what I was saying. I feel you didn't properly understand what I am saying. Chord 7 has the leading tone in it yes but you build chords based off every note in the scale so chord seven is diminished. Yes chord 7 has a tritone. first inversion sounds better than root position. I am honestly very shocked if he used a chord 7 in root position. Diminished 7ths yes absolutely. What I mean by my logic is the circle of fifths is a basic chord progression chart yes but to follow that as a manner of chord progression I don't agree with. 6,4 are very similar so are 1 and 6 that's why they are strong progressions. Common notes are ways to bind chord progressions together. it is probably just two different types of teaching but it sounds to structured and breaking convention goes to a whole new level with the way your taught because your convention is far stricter if you restrict yourself to the circle of fifths or where chords should lead based on that like 2 going to 5. 2, 7 in first inversion to 1 is good. I find 3 to 7 in first inversion is alright. Contrary motion in the bass to the sop is also good. the bass being disjunct isn't always the best but scale movement is. (some disjunct is good) Look we all love writing and I have a brass band piece that has just been published so I compose a lot. I would seriously recommend watching Music matters and see his analysis on bach chorales.
@@isaacshaw1596 Hey Isaac,
I'm definitely going to have to check out this Music Matters video because of your suggestion.
1) I think it's pretty ironic to say that my education is more "structured" that perhaps the one you've received/are receiving when also saying things like "first inversion sounds better than root position." Isn't something sounding good subjective? Why should someone's teachings tell me how to feel. First inversion vii chords are far more common than root position, but root position vii chords occur more than a handful of times in the chorales. Just taking a quick glance, BWV 1, BWV 8, BWV 14, and BWV 19 are just a few of the chorales that have root position vii chords in them. Most cases, they are subdivided chord progressions, but root position nonetheless. I have videos analyzing them, too! As far as "restricting myself to circle of fifths progressions," I'm not. At least, I don't think I am, and if it's coming across that way here, it definitely isn't in my later videos. Just by virtue of tertian harmony in the functional context that Bach and most other common practice period composers are using it, falling fifths progressions are the most common progressions you will find in Bach's chorales. This is a FACT. It has nothing to do with my preference, or your preference. It's just how it is, and me stating that a chord progression not following the cycle of falling fifths is unusual is merely a statement, not an opinion .
2) As far as "breaking convention" is concerned, Western Classical music has been in a period of post-tonality for well over 100 years, and the conventions that are being broken nowadays are far, far, removed from choosing what chords follow one another in a diatonic scale. I'm sure you're a talented composer in your own right. I compose quite a bit, too, as I am currently pursuing my PhD in composition 😃, and none of this analysis is actively informing the way that I write. You can check out my portfolio on my website. I compose algorithmic/interactive web-based music. I analyze because I'm passionate about Bach's music, and I'm trying to get closer to his music from a musicological and theoretical perspective.
I think using words like "sounds good" are largely unproductive in music theory education. If it sounds good to you, that's one thing... But making a universal claim that it sounds good isn't fair. I've analyzed a ton of music that I don't think sounds all that great. Is it any less valuable?
@@forrestmusictheory No, I am saying it sounds better in inversion. I am not saying it shouldn't be in root position. I have no doubt that he used the chord in root position. I am shocked because really diminished chords (tend) to work better in inversion. I imagine it will work well in root position. Convention such as double major thirds in four part harmony. Breaking convention yes people have done many things in modern day that you could 'breaks convention.' I completely understand where you come from. I am just trying to spin it. falling fifths progressions are strong and he probably does but I don't like doing it that way sounds too restrictive. Look it doesn't matter what I say it's not going to change anything however, the way USA teaches theory as apposed to the British way is very different. Circle of fifths is just a start. Where you got Sounds good gives music value from I don't know. I said things sound better in these inversions typically to be clear. I say usually. It's not literal. He breaks convention FACT if you go by your logic. He came from a strict period and was the start of the bridge to modern day music. I do 121 mentoring and love seeing peoples work and see how they compose and see what they do. I completely open to all styles and ways of writing. Bach is probably one of the best composers in history. I have no place to critique him but value in music comes from what you like. This is all opinion there is very little in music in the grand scheme of things that are facts. I am not going to name all the chorales that he doubles a major third or crosses parts or doesn't follow the pattern of fifths. I honestly don't care I am saying it sounds restrictive. I never said it was. I was also saying what you are now saying that music is expansive so I don't really understand what you are arguing against.
Why did you write V/IV in the second line in the C major modulation? Isn't it supposed to be V7? G D F B (G B D F)
You're absolutely right, it should be V7/IV. Thank you for catching that.
@forrestmusictheory no problem! Also I think I caught some other things. I think the vii° in the 3rd bar before the first cadence should be vii°6 and also in the second line, 3rd bar, there should be brackets on the A in alto and under the C in soprano because they are accented passing notes and the F in alto is the chord tone. In the bar with the long descending 8th note bass line before the cadence point, the brackets should be around the F in alto because it is suspended and the E following it is the chord tone of the vi chord. There should also be brackets around the G in bass in the 3rd last bar because the proceeding F is the chord tone.
Sorry to be such a pain, I'm a very pedantic person😅! I just had a question, why is it V7/IV if the root of the chord is G? Also is a V7/IV the same as V42?
Thanks again for all the harmonisations!
@@EthanNistor Hi again:
The viio chord is analyzed as a viio6. The 6 is just tiny, sorry. I only used cut outs from my Riemenschneider for the first 15 episodes or so, so there isn't a ton of room for roman numerals.
The A in the alto in the third bar is a 7-6 suspension, so there should be a marking around it. Good catch!
I mismarked the non-chord tone under the C in the soprano. The G should be marked because it's another suspension (4-3).
The F# in the Alto should be marked as a 9-8 suspension, you're right; however Bach changes bass, and we see parallel ninths. So even if we pretend that E is a chord tone, Bach subverts the resolution with the change in the bass. This could be analyzed as a vi42 chord if this was the case.
You're not a pain at all. Thank you for your insightful comments.
V7/IV implies that the chord is functioning as IV's dominant. I don't think this is the best example to explain secondary dominance, because Bach is doing something I would start calling "subdominant cadences" once I started picking up on it in later videos (it takes time to see patterns and routines in anyone's work), but we see Bach take our tonic triad and morph it into the dominant of C right before the cadence. Our expectation is for I to function like a tonic, especially after being stressed for the majority of a bar like he's doing here.
V/IV and V42 aren't the same thing. V42 is a dominant seventh chord in third inversion, V7/IV is a root position dominant chord that tonicizes the subdominant without fully modulating. In this case, I don't think there's a super straightforward analysis as far as the modulation is concerned, because Bach doesn't really prepare it before he cadences, so I analyzed it in what made sense to me. It's pretty unusual for modulations to occur over a secondary dominant, in general.
Hi great video! I do have a question, at 19:35 you decided to modulate to C. Would it make sense to just stay in the key of G and label a V7/IV going to IV making it a plagal cadence? Let me know if I’m missing something. Very helpful video thanks!
Great video
It would make so much sense for You to play these chord's progressions, as You analyze them with numbers. The analysis represents one's thinking about the music , but the music itself always supersedes the analysis. IE what chord was he "intending us to hear"?..... the answer is not a chord , but the music stands alone as his INTENTION, SO the combination of ALL THE NOTES in the rhythm as written, as they impinge on the internal ear including where they have come from and where they are going to.
Thank you for your beautiful and insightful response! I wish I was technically proficient enough to play through these chords at the keyboard, but I'm not.
Bach wasn't thinking in terms of roman numerals, but he was thinking in terms of function. Most likely not in the same way that we do after having analyzed his music for hundreds of years. Nevertheless, Western European Art Music of his time was largely defined by how harmony conveyed a sense of narrative,. Of course, Bach had his own beautiful relationship with the music he composed, but there were harmonic conventions he followed, as well. And while he didn't use roman numerals to do a shorthand harmonic analysis of the music he studied, he was aware of a chord's innate features tended for it to go in a particular direction.
Bach wrote music at an interesting intersection in the history of European composition. Although the music is mostly homorhythmic from a harmonic standpoint, the music is still highly contrapuntal; however, by the time Bach was around and in his heyday, music was conceived just as much vertically as it was horizontally. Of course it's meant to be experienced as a complete experience!
That being said, my analysis is just one particular lens to look at this music through!
hello, at 15:57, I would have said that the D chord is a +6 and not a 4 3, since it is on the fifth degree. The sixth Fsharp is the "sensible" of the G tone, (I'm french and i don't know how to say it in English, the last note of the major scale) Am I wrong here ?
i am realizing that i may be using a different system than yours. I have been taught to label a dominant chord with the seventh 7+, and then the inversion, 6/5, 6+ and 4+ in order to differenciate the dominant chord to other seventh chords. (sorry for my music theory english), thanks for your work
@@PartimentoFR Hello! 4/3 is shorthand for 6/4/3 because A to F# is a 6th, A to D is a 4th, and A to C# is a third. However, because an inverted 7th chord will always produce a 6th as its outer interval, it is often omitted. I think you might be confused in this case because D is the fifth degree of G major, however the fifth of the D major chord, A, is in the bass. Meaning, there are two fifths involved, one chordal and one scalar.
I think the "sensible" you were referring to is the "leading tone" in English. The seventh scale degree?
I can see how 7+ would be a logical analysis (perhaps it is shorthand for something like 7/3# or 7/3+), however the uppercase V already suggests that the triad has a major third from the bass.
At 7:21 wouldn’t that be a Cmaj7 chord in 3rd inversion?
Hi! Yes, if we look at beat two of the third complete measure, we do have a Cmaj7/B, which could be analyzed by just changing the figured bass to 4/3. No need to rewrite the roman numeral. When I look at this chord progression, I look at the B in the bass and the E in the alto as accented non-chord tones that proceed the F#dim/A. J.S. Bach tends to get the most contrapuntal during his cadences, and I don't feel that the B in the bass really contributes that much to the chord progression, as a whole, so I mark it as an accented passing tone, along with the E in the alto, for this reason. This is just my outlook on the chord progression, and I think that whether you choose to analyze that chord or not, they are both correct analyses. Thank you for your feedback!