Some chords in Beethoven's 7th

[neueliteratur]

Hi forum,

I was listening to Beethoven's 7th symphony and I liked the third chord so I looked up the score.



From there stems my questions:

1) Did I analyze this OK?

2) Is the V - IV movement common in classical music? I remember someone saying that movement comes from the blues.

3) How do I explain the C# note in the 3rd chord?

Share your wisdom.

Cheers.

[Mike777]

the third chord is an A7, a V in key of D (since there is no A7 in key of A).

[Ogg Vorbis]

Hi forum,

I was listening to Beethoven's 7th symphony and I liked the third chord so I looked up the score.



From there stems my questions:

1) Did I analyze this OK?

2) Is the V - IV movement common in classical music? I remember someone saying that movement comes from the blues.

3) How do I explain the C# note in the 3rd chord?

Share your wisdom.

Cheers.

1) You are using pop chord notation? This won't help analyze function, won't give you insight into voiceleading (and it gives the false impression that Beethoven wrote this on his Martin steel string.) First harmony is tonic, then V/6, then V4/2 of IV. Check the chromatically descending bassline.

2) Where do you find V to IV? I see it not.

3) C# is the leading tone in the very temporary are of D major (where the harmony resolves). G resolves to F# in the bass and C# resolves to D (IV6). The harmony is an inversion of a V7 of IV (the 7th is in the bass, ergo "4 2"

Seriously, you have to get away from thinking of pop chords in Beethoven. This music is not constructed using "chord progressions." Even the use of roman numeral harmonic analysis is deceptive because it's a vague attempt at understanding function and voiceleading.

[Mike777]

the third chord is known as a secondary dominant, and would be indicated as such:

V7ofIV

and I would add a "4/2" next to the V7 to indicate third inversion, but write the 4 over 2 like this:

4
-
2


so in pop vernacular it's not Em/G, it's A7/G.

And while other poster is correct about writing pop style chords, it's ok to do so just on your own just to see what chords are in use, but it's not the proper way to indicate music theory structure. Still, because we use pop chord style so much I suggest that you do so, it really helps to see what Beethoven is doing with chords, it reveals how often he uses simple chord patterns over and over, but with a lot of 'flair' (variation)

[Ogg Vorbis]

And while other poster is correct about writing pop style chords, it's ok to do so just on your own just to see what chords are in use, but it's not the proper way to indicate music theory structure. Still, because we use pop chord style so much I suggest that you do so, it really helps to see what Beethoven is doing with chords, it reveals how often he uses simple chord patterns over and over, but with a lot of 'flair' (variation)

You have a point about being able to extract something from it. I was assuming that the OP wanted some insight into how the music was actually constructed or some sort of insight into how the composer approached it. With these goals in mind, Beethoven did not actually know what a "chord pattern" was. This is a very late way of looking at things and produces very different results when applying that kind of analysis to composition. But perhaps a list of chords might be useful depending on what it is you are trying to know.

[jancivil]

clearly enough, trying to figure out what Beethoven did by 'chord patterns' or whatever resulted in the whopping error of calling V 4/2, a thoroughly understood move, "Em/G bass with an add 6". It isn't so useful, then is it.

I think Roman numeral is useful, but the figuring of the bass is crucial for understanding. 4/2 figures the C# and the A per the bass note which is G. That is what is important about the harmony right there, the intervals and where they lead. EG: Here, while the G moves as expected to F#, the C# does not rise to D, which shows the thinking of Beethoven, he's not finished with the idea.

[neueliteratur]

Thank you for your replies.

Then, where can I learn the "correct" way of analyzing Beethoven? What is that approach called?

I cannot have known what was the proper way of analyzing Beethoven, when I wasn't even aware of the option. My harmony teacher analyzes everything with the pop chord symbols, my classical harmonic analysis book has roman numerals all over the Romantic score (it says it is using the systems of Gottfried Weber and H. Riemann)

Edit: another question from a frustrated newbie: if voiceleading pwns harmony, why don't they start by teaching voiceleading and counterpoint at music schools? Rage fills me when my classical harmony teacher affirms "voiceleading/counterpoint is everything" after teaching me I IV V for the whole year. It's like...

Teacher - "do A!"
Student - *does A*
Teacher - "that's not what you're supposed to do! that's not how it works! you should do B!"

[tapper mike]

HS,

I applaud your efforts as I can't move beyond "pop/jazz" chords as a means of understanding music. I don't think those of use whose fundemental understand modern harmony is key to our perception of music can unwrite what we know to experience as beethoven would have percieved harmonic motion.

Your teacher may be trying to break you of your current understanding of harmony as either to utterly confuse you or to overwrite modern sensibilites so that traditional ones gain a foothold. (never worked with me) As I'm not a classical composer and only occassionally perform classical pieces. I try not to interpert things. I just listen to the music, read the sheet and try to clone it to the best of my ability.

[Ogg Vorbis]

if voiceleading pwns harmony, why don't they start by teaching voiceleading and counterpoint at music schools?

That's a really great question! My experience is that students were tripping all over themselves with voiceleading issues during the first two years of learning harmony anyway.

My advise is to go ahead and learn the "ghetto figured bass" method of roman numeral functional harmony and try to see what it's trying to tell you about setting up dissonance and resolving dissonance (voiceleading) and function (where is this phrase going?).

If you want a more thorough education, try some actual counterpoint classes. You will learn that counterpoint has little to do with "multiple melodies playing together."

But save the "A7" stuff for analyzing Barry Gibb tunes.

[jancivil]

Thank you for your replies.

Then, where can I learn the "correct" way of analyzing Beethoven? What is that approach called?

I cannot have known what was the proper way of analyzing Beethoven, when I wasn't even aware of the option. My harmony teacher analyzes everything with the pop chord symbols, my classical harmonic analysis book has roman numerals all over the Romantic score (it says it is using the systems of Gottfried Weber and H. Riemann)

Edit: another question from a frustrated newbie: if voiceleading pwns harmony, why don't they start by teaching voiceleading and counterpoint at music schools? Rage fills me when my classical harmony teacher affirms "voiceleading/counterpoint is everything" after teaching me I IV V for the whole year...

My student just asked me that same thing. I don't know, I don't know how things happened centuries ago in pedagogy. I do think you should find a teacher that teaches harmony in a useful way (and is consistent in the methodology if any) if this is an outcome.

I know that I am strong at part-writing as a result of how I learned it in the context of harmony (good teachers); the principles can be taught in that context. Part-writing is voice-leading in action. I don't know who teaches roman numerals and not 4-part writing using it. I think this notion is a symptom of looking at information on the internet lacking proper context.

It was apparent to me in my studies that the study of counterpoint was tied to a certain kind of consideration of music history; and I felt the compartmentalization of it away from harmonic part-writing was artificial and arbitrary.

I didn't set out to become any classical composer either. I did set out to learn composition and I wanted best practices before me. I want to understand the thinking of a composer. The practice of part writing using figured bass accords to the contrapuntal thinking in an useful way if it's approached wisely (and note well: whatever school it is that's substituting 'C' for '6/4' ISN'T THAT). If you want to get something out of Beethoven or one of these guys, pop music type of thinking is just not going to get you there.

[jancivil]

You will learn that counterpoint has little to do with "multiple melodies playing together."

Funny. I did not learn that. I learned enough to be able to make lines that had their own life and harmonically viable at the same time. I ignored some things that you seem to take kind of like doctrine.

[jancivil]

H I don't think those of use whose fundemental understand modern harmony is key to our perception of music can unwrite what we know to experience as beethoven would have percieved harmonic motion.

My understanding of harmony [before I was exposed to 4-part harmony writing using roman numbers] was as our band's arranger and producer in a prog-rock group that emulated Yes and Genesis, like that. Self-taught out of copping things off records, and pretty clueless. With a background hearing jazz above all else in my parent's house. I'd gone through the Mickey Baker books on guitar chords and all of this stuff. It didn't ruin me for thinking about music in the other ways.

[Mike777]

Thank you for your replies.

Then, where can I learn the "correct" way of analyzing Beethoven? What is that approach called?

I cannot have known what was the proper way of analyzing Beethoven, when I wasn't even aware of the option. My harmony teacher analyzes everything with the pop chord symbols, my classical harmonic analysis book has roman numerals all over the Romantic score (it says it is using the systems of Gottfried Weber and H. Riemann)

...

the approach is known as classical or traditional, and uses roman numerals, like in your harmonic analysis book. Classical theory also includes study of harmonic voicing, counterpoint, form, etc,

[tapper mike]

I didn't play a single single note line or scale for my first two years of playing. I knew of them however keys where merely references for harmonic analysis. I played rhythm guitar and I studied rhythm guitar. Song construction was always about the chord progression back then. I studied both conventional pop/rock/blues/jass/fusion chord progressions and rhythms as well as traditional (Blugrass/early jazz) forms with both conventional and unconventional subsitution. I was so good at it that teachers didn't want to teach me single note stuff. I'd always be getting calls as an accompianist because I was rock solid (even at 16)I could transpose on the fly for singers who would want to perform a song but couldn't do it in the original key.