Dear folks,
Can you help me with this piece?
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14207055/058.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14207055/058.mid
Context: I'm analysing a database containing Portuguese popular songs from the beggining of XXth century. The model I have so far, it that these songs are quite simple and use the same clichés of italian arias or classical music from the XVIIIth century.
I usually get i-V7-i, or ii-V-i, or IV-V7-I. Sometimes I get a ii0, #iv0 or vii0 or the augmented 6th chords.
Usually all pretty much simple and conform to classical models, nothing inventive.
But these one is getting me nerves because I cannot make sense of it.
My analysis of it is going:
in F:
VIb9-V7-i
i-V7-i (3x)-(Bbm)V7-i-(F)-V7-I
iiib9-I-VIb9-V7-#ii07-I-i-V7-I
iiib9-I-VIb9-V7-#ii07-I-ii7-I-VIb9-V7-i-(I)
Well. I don't understand the VIb9 or the iiib9 or even the #ii07.
These chords shouldn't exist at all. A 9th isn't used in the context of these songs. It's the first specimen in 60 songs where I can find a 9th chord.
Plus, I don't get what it is a VI or a iii or even a #ii function. They don't exist.
A simple clarification: when I saw that F7-Bbm at measure 15-16, I never assumed a I7-iv-V7, because a "I7" doesn't exist in these pieces. This is not blues. Whenever a x7 appears I already know it is a dominant cadence and there was a modulation. Likewise when an VI7 appears I assume it was a modulation or something. In these cases of VIb9, iiib9 and #ii07, I don't know what it is suposed to be happening.
Can you help me?
Many thanks in advance.
Need help with an analysis
-
- KVRist
- 350 posts since 11 May, 2008
Play fair and square!
-
- KVRer
- 22 posts since 30 Nov, 2010
By "#ii07," you're pointing at the G#o7 chords? Because that's the same chord as an Fo7, inverted. And in this piece, it always goes back to a straight F triad, which makes sense. This replacement of the tonic with a fully diminished seventh chord was a common device in the romantic era (I - io7 - I). It sounds pretty.
Measures 15-16 are a V7/iv, a secondary dominant of the subdominant. It goes straight to a iv-V-i after that, so nothing weird there (but you knew that).
As for the D chords with Eb's ("VIb9," though there is no 7th), I can't really think of any definitive, period-appropriate answer for them, other than to point out that the Eb's always resolve to the E of the C chord. You might want to think of them as D#'s. So I don't see anything "wrong" with them, they're just there for extra propulsion. This is twentieth century after all. Non-chord tones are pretty common in stride piano. This one even resolves!
Measures 15-16 are a V7/iv, a secondary dominant of the subdominant. It goes straight to a iv-V-i after that, so nothing weird there (but you knew that).
As for the D chords with Eb's ("VIb9," though there is no 7th), I can't really think of any definitive, period-appropriate answer for them, other than to point out that the Eb's always resolve to the E of the C chord. You might want to think of them as D#'s. So I don't see anything "wrong" with them, they're just there for extra propulsion. This is twentieth century after all. Non-chord tones are pretty common in stride piano. This one even resolves!
Last edited by Audiosprite on Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Your first chord there is not a VI. It surely doesn't sound like a D anything chord.
It is an F# diminished 7th with a strong non-chord tone D in place of C. To demonstrate this harmony to yourself, insert a C just after that D as a passing tone, preparing the next harmony. Actually there it is exactly as I described in measure 19.
You appear to be operating under an assumption, that there will be no non-chord tones, that you can explain every tone in every spot according to a symbol. That is erroneous. You're also assuming that the roman numeral system or chord naming has a meaning of its own. It doesn't. There is nothing wrong with any harmony just based on 'some theory'. The idea that 'this chord shouldn't exist' is not helping you but hindering you.
You're asking the cart of theory to pull the horse of musical thinking there. You might be opposed to "#i dim 7" there somehow, but that kind of thinking will get in the way of your understanding.
That is, btw the same as a c dim 7 and can be seen to function as leading to V, C, which isn't at all unusual.
Just at a glance, there are lots of such things in this piece. EG: that A along with C E Bb, what you have a very typical non-chord tone out of romantic harmony practice, and the harmony is simply V7 in F. You tried to shoehorn it into an A based triad with a 9th and no 7th; no. Use your ear and base your guesses on root function here; that A in no way works as a functional root. Look for the simplest explanation.
It is an F# diminished 7th with a strong non-chord tone D in place of C. To demonstrate this harmony to yourself, insert a C just after that D as a passing tone, preparing the next harmony. Actually there it is exactly as I described in measure 19.
You appear to be operating under an assumption, that there will be no non-chord tones, that you can explain every tone in every spot according to a symbol. That is erroneous. You're also assuming that the roman numeral system or chord naming has a meaning of its own. It doesn't. There is nothing wrong with any harmony just based on 'some theory'. The idea that 'this chord shouldn't exist' is not helping you but hindering you.
You're asking the cart of theory to pull the horse of musical thinking there. You might be opposed to "#i dim 7" there somehow, but that kind of thinking will get in the way of your understanding.
That is, btw the same as a c dim 7 and can be seen to function as leading to V, C, which isn't at all unusual.
Just at a glance, there are lots of such things in this piece. EG: that A along with C E Bb, what you have a very typical non-chord tone out of romantic harmony practice, and the harmony is simply V7 in F. You tried to shoehorn it into an A based triad with a 9th and no 7th; no. Use your ear and base your guesses on root function here; that A in no way works as a functional root. Look for the simplest explanation.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 350 posts since 11 May, 2008
JanCivil and Audiosprite,
I appreciate a lot your explanations and many thanks.
Jancivil about the "horse", my issue was just "context". I "know" that this kind of repertoire I have in hands is usually made by amateurs and they follow very simple lines. All other songs I had so far were plain "classical" harmony, not even romantic.
That's what was so puzzling here. Because people nowadays can do whatever they want. But if I was not in context I'd find this song rather normal for a XXth century song. However it is totally uncommon inside the context and tradition of this pratice performance where most songs are plain two chord songs.
So, this is the first case where I'm grabbing the so called "non chord" tones.
Well, this may lead me to think, that this song in particular was notated/composed by an erudite composer of the time and it is an exception to the amateurism I'm used to see inside this tradition... a "wise guy" that wanted to fool around
If it was not recurrent I would even dare to say it was a mistake or a misplaced note...
It would be like to find a 11(#5b9) chord in Mozart, or a 7th interval in Pérotin. It just doesn't make sense in the context.
In this case, "non chord tones" are not (or were, until now) expected inside this repertoire...
I guess I'll go for the simplest way then...
In resume: the iiib9 are V7; the VIb9 are #i0 (still awkward to me, in this context usually the diminished are on ii, #iv or vii); and #iio7 are also i07 enarmonically spelled (i don't know why the g# instead of ab then).
I appreciate a lot your explanations and many thanks.
Jancivil about the "horse", my issue was just "context". I "know" that this kind of repertoire I have in hands is usually made by amateurs and they follow very simple lines. All other songs I had so far were plain "classical" harmony, not even romantic.
That's what was so puzzling here. Because people nowadays can do whatever they want. But if I was not in context I'd find this song rather normal for a XXth century song. However it is totally uncommon inside the context and tradition of this pratice performance where most songs are plain two chord songs.
So, this is the first case where I'm grabbing the so called "non chord" tones.
Well, this may lead me to think, that this song in particular was notated/composed by an erudite composer of the time and it is an exception to the amateurism I'm used to see inside this tradition... a "wise guy" that wanted to fool around
If it was not recurrent I would even dare to say it was a mistake or a misplaced note...
It would be like to find a 11(#5b9) chord in Mozart, or a 7th interval in Pérotin. It just doesn't make sense in the context.
In this case, "non chord tones" are not (or were, until now) expected inside this repertoire...
I guess I'll go for the simplest way then...
In resume: the iiib9 are V7; the VIb9 are #i0 (still awkward to me, in this context usually the diminished are on ii, #iv or vii); and #iio7 are also i07 enarmonically spelled (i don't know why the g# instead of ab then).
Play fair and square!
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
the cart of theory, eg., labels for the harmony, is in front of the horse of what happened harmonically, and you were wide of the mark in your analysis. which was useless, was it not? nothing personal, I'm just saying. another person missed it as well. this is something I've observed over time that people do with a little bit of music theory; demonstrated here with the assumption that a pretty normal chord should be impossible.
with "still awkward to me, in this context usually the diminished are on ii, #iv or vii", you do it again. I am not trying to lead you astray or make any other point other than to teach: that's not such an unusual harmony... I doubt Chopin, a long time previous to this, would have been too surprised.
The first thing I did, before I decided anything was anything, was I played it and heard it, and recognized the thing. I found that it worked, and would not guess there was any mistake. Now, I did have the advantage of analyses that looked suspect going in...
"this song in particular was notated/composed by an erudite composer of the time and it is an exception to the amateurism I'm used to see inside this tradition... a "wise guy" that wanted to fool around"
I think you're right about that. .~)
"#iio7 are also i07 enharmonically spelled (i don't know why the g# instead of ab then)"
It matters little if at all what you call a diminished 7th chord here; it functions as a secondary dominant in a known way, owing to voice leading. there's that cart again, btw.
with "still awkward to me, in this context usually the diminished are on ii, #iv or vii", you do it again. I am not trying to lead you astray or make any other point other than to teach: that's not such an unusual harmony... I doubt Chopin, a long time previous to this, would have been too surprised.
The first thing I did, before I decided anything was anything, was I played it and heard it, and recognized the thing. I found that it worked, and would not guess there was any mistake. Now, I did have the advantage of analyses that looked suspect going in...
"this song in particular was notated/composed by an erudite composer of the time and it is an exception to the amateurism I'm used to see inside this tradition... a "wise guy" that wanted to fool around"
I think you're right about that. .~)
"#iio7 are also i07 enharmonically spelled (i don't know why the g# instead of ab then)"
It matters little if at all what you call a diminished 7th chord here; it functions as a secondary dominant in a known way, owing to voice leading. there's that cart again, btw.
-
- KVRAF
- 6937 posts since 4 Jun, 2004 from Utrecht, Holland
I'd like to, but I get a 404 on those links. Expired? So all I got now to work on is your schema.Musicologo wrote:Can you help me with this piece?
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14207055/058.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14207055/058.mid
I'm not too familiar with the Roman numeral notation. Is the first line the same as follows?Musicologo wrote:But these one is getting me nerves because I cannot make sense of it. My analysis of it is going:
in F:
VIb9-V7-i
i-V7-i (3x)-(Bbm)V7-i-(F)-V7-I
iiib9-I-VIb9-V7-#ii07-I-i-V7-I
iiib9-I-VIb9-V7-#ii07-I-ii7-I-VIb9-V7-i-(I)
Code: Select all
| Db9 | C7 | Fm |Maybe this is the exception that proves the ruleMusicologo wrote:I don't understand the VIb9 or the iiib9 or even the #ii07. These chords shouldn't exist at all. A 9th isn't used in the context of these songs. It's the first specimen in 60 songs where I can find a 9th chord.
Plus, I don't get what it is a VI or a iii or even a #ii function. They don't exist.
What I make of it, it doesn't sound strange at all to use these chords. It just shows that this song was composed by someone that used a broader palette of chords, borrowed from jazz, samba or whatever. I'd say do some research on the composer if possible.
First I thought you were analysing Pimba music. It fits your description of the other 60 songs perfectly. Would you know how this different song got into this collection? Who put it there, and using what criteria? In what year was it published?
My MusicCalc is temporary offline.
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.