Prelude Analysis BWV 998

[hallj...@gmail.com]

Speaking of Bach, I just posted an analysis of the Prelude from Prelude, Fugue and Allegro BWV 998 if anyone would like to take a look at it. PDF at end:

http://www.johnhallguitar.com/blog/prelude_analysis_bwv_998_by_js_bach/

I had to do something productive over this break.

John

[Alphonsus Jr.]

Looking forward to it! I'm currently working on this very piece.

[hallj...@gmail.com]

Well, what do you know. It ain't metal but it's the next best thing.

John

[JPD]

Very nifty work, John. A treat to read and hear.

[hallj...@gmail.com]

Thank you John!

[Alphonsus Jr.]

As my teacher pointed out, the structure of the piece might be broken down as follows:

T3D - E2 - T3A - E5 - T3b - E8 - T3G - E10 - Climax/Cadenza4 - Coda7

Where:

T = Theme
E = Episode
Numbers = span of measures involved
D, A, b, G = keys

One might also note the Fibonacci Series embedded in this piece: E2 + T3A ----> E5, then E5 + T3b ----> E8, then E8 + T3G ---> 11 measures of the combo of the Climax/Cadenza plus the Coda (with E10 between T3G and these last 11 measures as a clever trick).

[John Nguyen]

On Jan 4, 3:10 pm, "Alphonsus Jr." <alphonsu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> One might also note the Fibonacci Series embedded in this piece: E2 + T3A ----> E5, then E5 + T3b ----> E8, then E8 + T3G ---> 11 measures of the combo of the Climax/Cadenza plus the Coda (with E10 between T3G and these last 11 measures as a clever trick).

Silly self-fullfilling prophecy!

[Alphonsus Jr.]

Not at all. Nothing in the music of Bach is accidental.

[John Nguyen]

Probably true for his music, but pulling the Fibonacci into it is way
over the top.

[Alphonsus Jr.]

Not at all. Your study of Bach has clearly been deficient.

[John Nguyen]

> Not at all. Your study of Bach has clearly been deficient.-

Sure! Where exactly the number of 11 is coming from? The new Fibonacci
series from Bach? Pulling this piece of random information from Bach
music and slapping it into the Fibonacci numbers is similar to calling
the number 41592 a Pi number :-)

[Alphonsus Jr.]

There's nothing random about it. That's the point.

As for where 11 comes from, a more attentive reading of my post will reveal it.

[Alphonsus Jr.]

A bit on Bach and the Fibonacci Series:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2005/may/12/classicalmusicandopera1

http://davidpipermusic.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/balance-in-bach-and-the-fibonacci-sequence/

[dsi1]

On 1/4/2013 3:24 PM, Alphonsus Jr. wrote:
> On Friday, January 4, 2013 3:58:21 PM UTC-8, John Nguyen wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 6:38 pm, "Alphonsus Jr." <alphonsu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, January 4, 2013 2:01:37 PM UTC-8, John Nguyen wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 4, 4:47 pm, "Alphonsus Jr." <alphonsu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> On Friday, January 4, 2013 1:10:58 PM UTC-8, John Nguyen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> On Jan 4, 3:10 pm, "Alphonsus Jr." <alphonsu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>> One might also note the Fibonacci Series embedded in this piece: E2 + T3A ----> E5, then E5 + T3b ----> E8, then E8 + T3G ---> 11 measures of the combo of the Climax/Cadenza plus the Coda (with E10 between T3G and these last 11 measures as a clever trick).
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> Silly self-fullfilling prophecy!
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> Not at all. Nothing in the music of Bach is accidental.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Probably true for his music, but pulling the Fibonacci into it is way
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> over the top.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Not at all. Your study of Bach has clearly been deficient.-
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure! Where exactly the number of 11 is coming from? The new Fibonacci
>>
>> series from Bach? Pulling this piece of random information from Bach
>>
>> music and slapping it into the Fibonacci numbers is similar to calling
>>
>> the number 41592 a Pi number :-)

Well, the first part of pi expressed as a sequence of notes sound
relatively harmless, at least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOQb_mtkEEE

>
> A bit on Bach and the Fibonacci Series:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2005/may/12/classicalmusicandopera1

Please to explain how rabbits can breed fibonaccily. This seems
counter-intuitive.

>
> http://davidpipermusic.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/balance-in-bach-and-the-fibonacci-sequence/
>

[John Nguyen]

> http://davidpipermusic.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/balance-in-bach-and-t...-

Damn! Such poor attempt to try to jam the Fibonacci in with a few
numbers. I guess one finds what one tries to look for. By the way,
number 11 is not in the Fibonacci series, if you've noticed.

Please note that I'm not trying to bash Bach music which is by all
account wonderful to enjoy. I'm just pointing out the snake oil people
are trying to squeeze out of Bach music. I'm sure if one looks hard
enough, one can find the Pi pattern or the constant e somewhere in the
music.

[John Nguyen]

> http://davidpipermusic.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/balance-in-bach-and-t...-

Trivia: What the following numbers are part of: 1, 2, 3, 5 ?

[Fadosolrélamisi]

About 24601 ? You give your answer and I'll give mine!

[John Nguyen]

> > Trivia: What the following numbers are part of: 1, 2, 3, 5 ?
>

> About 24601 ? You give your answer and I'll give mine!-

Exactly! The set is too small to signify anything. They could be part
of the Fibonacci series, or part of the prime numbers, or part of the
real integers, or part of New Jersey's Pick-Four lottery numbers. With
a tiny snippet of information, one can fit it in almost anywhere and
call it something significant :-)
Cheers,

John

[Slogoin]

On Jan 5, 6:09 am, John Nguyen <johnnguyen5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> or part of the prime numbers,

One is not prime.

> or part of the real integers,

I like the unreal integers.

> one can fit it in almost anywhere and call it something significant :-)

Sometimes it is significant and you do win the lottery.

[John Nguyen]

On Jan 5, 9:27 am, Slogoin <la...@deack.net> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 6:09 am, John Nguyen <johnnguyen5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > or part of the prime numbers,
>
>    One is not prime.
>

Really? 1, 2, 3, 5?

[John Nguyen]

OK. You won! But that's not the point I'm trying to make :-)

[Slogoin]

On Jan 5, 7:05 am, John Nguyen <johnnguyen5...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But that's not the point I'm trying to make :-)

I think Jackson is not going to understand your point. He's just
now starting to grapple with ideas well beyond his comfort zone. Just
think how hard it must be to someone who comes to these ideas so late
in life.

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Yeah but mine is significant, even if it seems to be very random! Of course it's fictive ... it's Jean Valjean prision numbers in the latest film/musical on Victor Hugo latest adaptation of "Les miserables"

[John Nguyen]

> Yeah but mine is significant, even if it seems to be very random! Of course it's fictive ... it's Jean Valjean prision numbers in the latest film/musical on Victor Hugo latest adaptation of "Les miserables"-

Dang@! I was thinking you referred to Blackburg, VA zipcode! :-)

[stanleyy]

Nice job John. The thing about Schenker and other reduction style of analysis, though, especially as presented by Forte (and the same problem exists with Forte's atonal analysis system) is the 'imbrication' (the choosing of structural/analytic pitches) - one can find almost anything one wishes visually, even 'conceptual' pitches that aren't even present! I think a much compelling 'map' results from a reduction by ear, rather than from notation. If I get a bit of time this afternoon I'll post one.
sy

[Steven Bornfeld]

My favorite work in the whole "guitar" repertoire. Many thanks!

Steve

[Mental Handle]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 09:09:35 -0800 (PST), hallj...@gmail.com wrote:

> Speaking of Bach, I just posted an analysis of the Prelude from Prelude,
> Fugue and Allegro BWV 998 if anyone would like to take a look at it. PDF at end:
>
> http://www.johnhallguitar.com/blog/prelude_analysis_bwv_998_by_js_bach/

Just taking a look... In bar 12, why isn't the 2nd chord just a F#(6-5)
going to G to Minor Dominant Bm to bar 13 C#m - i just don't hear a Daug.
What do you think?

Rgds

[hallj...@gmail.com]

Interesting you mentioned that. In measure 12 the A# is really just a chromatic passing tone between an "implied" A (as Stanley mentions) in the D major triad and the B in the following G major triad. I almost didn't even bother to label it as a new harmony but decided the augmented triad labeling worked best since the augmented triad usually has a dominant function as this does in resolving to G major. I think you certainly could hear this as an F#6-5 with a deceptive resolution as you said, but in this context I believe that over complicates things. Also notice how the bass line is just arpeggiating root to third through this passage. That would be another reason for keeping the harmonic rhythm consistent (changing every two beats).

John

[hallj...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, January 5, 2013 12:11:26 PM UTC-5, stanleyy wrote:
> Nice job John. The thing about Schenker and other reduction style of analysis, though, especially as presented by Forte (and the same problem exists with Forte's atonal analysis system) is the 'imbrication' (the choosing of structural/analytic pitches) - one can find almost anything one wishes visually, even 'conceptual' pitches that aren't even present! I think a much compelling 'map' results from a reduction by ear, rather than from notation. If I get a bit of time this afternoon I'll post one.
>
> sy

That would be great Stanley and thanks for your input!

John

[Mental Handle]

You are right, also, Bach would have presented the (5+)Thinking aka aug
in quite another way...

[dsi1]

On 1/5/2013 4:09 AM, John Nguyen wrote:
>
> Exactly! The set is too small to signify anything. They could be part
> of the Fibonacci series, or part of the prime numbers, or part of the
> real integers, or part of New Jersey's Pick-Four lottery numbers. With
> a tiny snippet of information, one can fit it in almost anywhere and
> call it something significant :-)
> Cheers,
>
> John
>

I used to be fascinated with the fact that my parent's house had the
address "1357" - the first 4 prime numbers. Now I find out that 1 is not
prime. No matter. it's the first 4 positive odd integers then.

Numerology was a big deal back in the old days and Bach may have been
interested in the mystical properties of numbers but 3 or 4 sequences
ain't gonna cut it. The reality is that music based on a set of numbers
sounds a little odd, contrived, and forced.

[dsi1]

On 1/5/2013 6:19 AM, Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:
>
> Yeah but mine is significant, even if it seems to be very random! Of course it's fictive ... it's Jean Valjean prision numbers in the latest film/musical on Victor Hugo latest adaptation of "Les miserables"
>

I saw the movie a week or so ago. I thought "24601" was an strange
number. As for the movie - I just don't get it. The photography was dark
and unpleasant to look at which is ok I guess considering the subject
matter. The main problem was the music was pretty unmemorable. Call me
old-fashioned but Oklahoma, it ain't. I don't know how the French people
feel about it but I couldn't get very involved with this small and
obscure part of history that took place a few years after the real
revolution either. Russell Crowe's singing was pretty goofy. Other than
those things it was a great flick.

[Fadosolrélamisi]

On Saturday, January 5, 2013 2:30:01 PM UTC-8, dsi1 wrote:

My wife loved it but ... I was a little bit measured in my appreciation of the music and on the emphasis of some of the characters ... same comment came out of my mouth about the lack of variety in the themes and some voices were weak, pretty weak (including Jean Valjean) ... of course all that turned astutely to entertain ... One just need to look at how the Tenardier are depicted to see that ... In the book one finishes by developing a simmering hate of these characters ... in the film ... well ...
I have seen many adaptations of this, musicals and films and I always come out preferring the book!
I'd love to see "L'homme qui rit" featuring ... Gerard Depardieu ...

[dsi1]

On 1/5/2013 12:46 PM, Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:
> On Saturday, January 5, 2013 2:30:01 PM UTC-8, dsi1 wrote:

My wife loved it too. What can one say about that? Nuttin.

I saw the 1934 French version on TV recently. That was pretty good
although it was a little on the long side at 4 hours and 41 minutes.
Those crazy Europeans.

Speaking of zombies and the man who laughs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go4KcVFlKsc

[Mental Handle]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 13:34:54 -0800 (PST), hallj...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, January 5, 2013 3:12:41 PM UTC-5, Mental Handle wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 09:09:35 -0800 (PST), hallj...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of Bach, I just posted an analysis of the Prelude from Prelude,
>>> Fugue and Allegro BWV 998 if anyone would like to take a look at it. PDF at end:
>>> http://www.johnhallguitar.com/blog/prelude_analysis_bwv_998_by_js_bach/
>>
>> Just taking a look... In bar 12, why isn't the 2nd chord just a F#(6-5)
>> going to G to Minor Dominant Bm to bar 13 C#m - i just don't hear a Daug.
>> What do you think?
>> Rgds
>
> Interesting you mentioned that. In measure 12 the A# is really just a chromatic
> passing tone between an "implied" A (as Stanley mentions) in the D major triad
> and the B in the following G major triad.

Do you really hear this as a "passing note"? Then how are things in the
2nd half of measure 13 where you declare the same A# as 3rd of a F#7 chord?

> I almost didn't even bother to label it as a new harmony but decided the
> augmented triad labeling worked best since the augmented triad usually
> has a dominant function as this does in resolving to G major.

Same kind of usual is the progression I - I+ - vi.

> I think you certainly could hear this as an F#6-5 with a deceptive resolution

I hear the F#6-5 as prominent as this is so typical for J.S.Bach while I
do not hear much of a a deceptive resolution of a cadence, which is because
this move does not always need to be a resolution at all but just another
progression. Take for instance the cadence I ii V I where, e.g. in the C
key, the beginning Cmajor - Dminor step is not heard much of a resolution
but rather than some natural progression.

> as you said, but in this context I believe that over complicates things.

There is no complication at all since Bach used the 5+ rarely and in
prominent places (which means immediately in the theme).

> Also notice how the bass line is just arpeggiating root to third through
> this passage.

What do you mean? Do you mean the progression d f# g b?

> That would be another reason for keeping the harmonic rhythm
> consistent (changing every two beats).

This is Bach counterpoint - not a melody above some 'changes' and one
can analyze this counterpoint also much deeper (pinning every single note).

Anyway in the 2nd half of measure 13 you write the same A# as 3rd of a F#7
chord and this seems natural as it is the V of Bm which is the parallel of
the D tonic. The progression F#-G, 5-6 is a very, very common one in minor.

Rgds

-
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMentalHandle

[Mental Handle]

Oooops, sorry "typo"!

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 11:09:24 +0100, Mental Handle wrote:

> The progression F#-G, 5-6 is a very, very common one in minor.

Please read:

The progression F#-G, V-VI is a very, very common one in minor.

[hallj...@gmail.com]

I indicated the harmony in measure 13 as F#7 for two important reasons:

1) The rhythmic placement of the A# supported by the bass F#, which is now on a strong beat rather than a weak beat as in measure 12.
2) The continuation of the bass pattern I mentioned before (measures 11-13) in which the bass is arpeggiating the triad (root-third).

I will try to explain a little clearer. Notice beginning in measure 11 through 13 the bass line outlines the root and third of each one of the chords indicated (E-G, A-C#, D-F# etc.) This indicates to me a harmonic rhythm that changes every two beats. I hear the F# bass in measure 12 as the third of a D major triad. In this context I hear the A# as a simple chromatic passing tone (occurring on a weak beat) in measure 12 and as part of a new harmony (F#7, occurring on a strong beat, confirmed by the bass root to third arpeggiation) in measure 13.

Yes it is moving into B minor here. Relative minor is I am sure what you meant to say, not parallel.

I knew I would get some kickback on using chord symbols but after all, don't we first figure out what the chord is before we label it with a Roman numeral? I am hoping this will make the analysis a bit more accessible, as most guitarists are familiar with this type of notation.

As to your point on counterpoint, I believe Bach was always thinking harmonically as well as contrapuntally.

John

[Mental Handle]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 05:29:22 -0800 (PST), hallj...@gmail.com wrote:

Please note: you replied to a fragment which just corrects
in one line the spelling of "5 6" to "V VI" - the complete
post is: Message-ID: <kcbigh$f4o$1...@speranza.aioe.org>

> I knew I would get some kickback on using chord symbols but after all

That is not a problem - there is just no Daug/F# but it is F#(6-5).

> As to your point on counterpoint,

I did not make any "point on counterpoint" - I just mentioned this
piece is not made of "changes" like e.g. american songs are made of.

> I believe Bach was always thinking harmonically as well as contrapuntally.

Of course and I didn't say something else but I said:
This is not a piece made of "harmonic rhythm changes every two beats".

There is simply no "Daug/F#" in this piece.

Did you read my complete post Message-ID: <kcbigh$f4o$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
as well?

Rgds

[Fadosolrélamisi]

On Saturday, January 5, 2013 10:53:45 PM UTC-8, dsi1 wrote:

> On 1/5/2013 12:46 PM, Fadosolrélamisi wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, January 5, 2013 2:30:01 PM UTC-8, dsi1 wrote:
>

That's long indeed! I've never seen it (will be on the look out!)It seems to be the first cinematographic version. I'm sure it's closer to the book than any subsequent ones! ...It has been a land mark film to consecrate great French actors, so it seems if we look at the list! Gabin (50s),Ventura, Belmondo, Depardieu ...

And here is a chronological list of the cinematography (and TV) of les Miz!

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Mis%C3%A9rables

An Aranjuezian film!

[dsi1]

On 1/6/2013 5:06 AM, Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:
> On Saturday, January 5, 2013 10:53:45 PM UTC-8, dsi1 wrote:

>> On 1/5/2013 12:46 PM, Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, January 5, 2013 2:30:01 PM UTC-8, dsi1 wrote:
>>

>>>> On 1/5/2013 6:19 AM, Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Yeah but mine is significant, even if it seems to be very random! Of course it's fictive ... it's Jean Valjean prision numbers in the latest film/musical on Victor Hugo latest adaptation of "Les miserables"
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I saw the movie a week or so ago. I thought "24601" was an strange
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> number. As for the movie - I just don't get it. The photography was dark
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> and unpleasant to look at which is ok I guess considering the subject
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> matter. The main problem was the music was pretty unmemorable. Call me
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> old-fashioned but Oklahoma, it ain't. I don't know how the French people
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> feel about it but I couldn't get very involved with this small and
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> obscure part of history that took place a few years after the real
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> revolution either. Russell Crowe's singing was pretty goofy. Other than
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> those things it was a great flick.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> My wife loved it but ... I was a little bit measured in my appreciation of the music and on the emphasis of some of the characters ... same comment came out of my mouth about the lack of variety in the themes and some voices were weak, pretty weak (including Jean Valjean) ... of course all that turned astutely to entertain ... One just need to look at how the Tenardier are depicted to see that ... In the book one finishes by developing a simmering hate of these characters ... in the film ... well ...
>>
>>> I have seen many adaptations of this, musicals and films and I always come out preferring the book!
>>
>>> I'd love to see "L'homme qui rit" featuring ... Gerard Depardieu ...
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> My wife loved it too. What can one say about that? Nuttin.
>>
>>
>>
>> I saw the 1934 French version on TV recently. That was pretty good
>>
>> although it was a little on the long side at 4 hours and 41 minutes.
>>
>> Those crazy Europeans.
>>
>>
>>
>> Speaking of zombies and the man who laughs...
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go4KcVFlKsc
>
> That's long indeed! I've never seen it (will be on the look out!)It seems to be the first cinematographic version. I'm sure it's closer to the book than any subsequent ones! ...It has been a land mark film to consecrate great French actors, so it seems if we look at the list! Gabin (50s),Ventura, Belmondo, Depardieu ...
>
> And here is a chronological list of the cinematography (and TV) of les Miz!
>
>

> An Aranjuezian film!
>

It's a popular tale, people just seem to like retelling it. I saw a
1930s version of "Moby Dick" recently. In that version, Ahab kills the
great whale (it looked pretty regular to me) and goes home and marries
his sweetheart. I like happy endings but this is ridiculous!

[Fadosolrélamisi]

On Sunday, January 6, 2013 10:01:37 AM UTC-8, dsi1 wrote:

> On 1/6/2013 5:06 AM, Fadosolrélamisi wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, January 5, 2013 10:53:45 PM UTC-8, dsi1 wrote:
>

Popular that's for sure ... especially with its justice themes ; one of them expoiting the theme of the bad guy who is turning to be good and the good one, righteousness is his world, turning out to be the one sticking so much to his principles that he stick up with his convictions of no slavation
(I have to say that Jalver's suicide was well done in the latest adaptation) ...

I remember liking this adaptation of Robinson Crusoe

and this scene in particular! (Hilarious but dramatic ... I guess that's the genius of it!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHtgKIFoQfE

[Mental Handle]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 13:34:54 -0800 (PST), hallj...@gmail.com wrote:

> In measure 12 the A# is really just a chromatic passing tone between
> an "implied" A

If there is an implied A in beat 3 of measure 12,

rather than

D D+ G G

we're getting

D D-F# G G

So in case of an implied A, there is still no D+ in beat 3 of measure 12,
is it?

Rgds

-
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMentalHandle

[Mental Handle]

Sorry, typo: changed "beat 3" to "beat 2"

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 13:34:54 -0800 (PST), hallj...@gmail.com wrote:

> In measure 12 the A# is really just a chromatic passing tone between
> an "implied" A

If there is an implied A in beat 2 of measure 12,

rather than

D D+ G G

we're getting

D D-F# G G

So in case of an implied A, there is still no D+ in beat 2 of measure 12,
is it? This way your harmonic rhythm scheme is still kept up in measure 12.

Rgds

-
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMentalHandle

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Most of the debate we have here about Bach mostly revolves around one note, and to be more specific, it has always (up to now) been about a sharp (#) note! (Do not ask me why!)
I put harmonic analysis on the same level as looking/observing and analyzing a painting! Most of the time the work is done and it's by looking at it that some evidences can be discovered (and sometimes things not even thought by the painter or composer!). John point of view it strong and I would agree with his way of seeing the A# as being no less no more that a simple passing note.
In these situations were many meaning can derive from one source, interpretation reveals the cameleonesque nature of the spot (is it orange pulling from yellow or from red?), and whether one adopt one point of view or another is simply a matter of how one relates to the inconspicuous environment of, in this case the two notes!
In my view the environment can be extended ... In mm 11, 12, 13 Bach reiterates the motive of the theme through a circle of fifth (or fourth) Em - A, D - G, C# - F# to arrive at the relative minor key of Bm. That would equate to ii - V in D, V of V in C, ii - V in Bm which simply put is from D to C to Bm. This reinforce John analysis of seeing the A# in mm 12 as a passing note.
That's my 2 cents.

Alain

[Mental Handle]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 16:26:20 -0800 (PST), Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:

> On Sunday, January 6, 2013 1:40:44 PM UTC-8, Mental Handle wrote:
>> Sorry, typo: changed "beat 3" to "beat 2"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 13:34:54 -0800 (PST), hallj...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> In measure 12 the A# is really just a chromatic passing tone between
>>
>>> an "implied" A
>>
>>
>>
>> If there is an implied A in beat 2 of measure 12,
>>
>>
>>
>> rather than
>>
>>
>>
>> D D+ G G
>>
>>
>>
>> we're getting
>>
>>
>>
>> D D-F# G G
>>
>>
>>
>> So in case of an implied A, there is still no D+ in beat 2 of measure 12,
>>
>> is it? This way your harmonic rhythm scheme is still kept up in measure 12.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rgds
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMentalHandle
>
> Most of the debate we have here about Bach mostly revolves around one note, and to be more specific, it has always (up to now) been about a sharp (#) note! (Do not ask me why!)

Sure, thats nice as those who stick to it early should do learn much of it later.

> I put harmonic analysis on the same level as looking/observing and analyzing a painting!

Don't be silly!

> Most of the time the work is done and it's by looking at it that some evidences can be discovered (and sometimes things not even thought by the painter or composer!).

Yes.

> John point of view it strong and I would agree with his way of seeing the A# as being no less no more that a simple passing note.

Can be done, but STILL there is no Daug or D+ involved...

> In these situations were many meaning can derive from one source, interpretation reveals the cameleonesque nature of the spot (is it orange pulling from yellow or from red?), and whether one adopt one point of view or another is simply a matter of how one relates to the inconspicuous environment of, in this case the two notes!

Agreed.

> In my view the environment can be extended ... In mm 11, 12, 13 Bach reiterates the motive of the theme through a circle of fifth (or fourth) Em - A, D - G, C# - F# to arrive at the relative minor key of Bm. That would equate to ii - V in D, V of V in C, ii - V in Bm which simply put is from D to C to Bm. This reinforce John analysis of seeing the A# in mm 12 as a passing note.

Ic.

> That's my 2 cents.

Mine as well.

> Alain

4cts

[Mental Handle]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 01:49:48 +0100, Mental Handle wrote:

> This reinforce John analysis of seeing the A# in mm 12 as a passing note.

Keep in mind: an a# passing note means there is no Daug or D+ in measure 12.

So you see there is no reinforce.

Rgds

2ct
-
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMentalHandle

[Fadosolrélamisi]

If you stick mordicus to the verticality ... I have to conceid![;o)
But ... if you look at it from the stand point of linearity (melodie and linear interval relation) which produce a descending harmonic march from D to C to Bm ... it does not stand so strongly ... but again if you insist I have no problem calling it both, as both are right, orange pulling towards red or orange pulling towards yellow! And it passes so fast like these little water drops on a Rubens nude ...

[Mental Handle]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 17:02:20 -0800 (PST), Fadosolr�lamisi wrote:

> On Sunday, January 6, 2013 4:55:00 PM UTC-8, Mental Handle wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 01:49:48 +0100, Mental Handle wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> This reinforce John analysis of seeing the A# in mm 12 as a passing note.
>>
>>
>>
>> Keep in mind: an a# passing note means there is no Daug or D+ in measure 12.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you see there is no reinforce.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rgds
>>
>>
>>
>> 2ct
>>
>> -
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMentalHandle
>
> If you stick mordicus to the verticality ... I have to conceid![;o)

Ooops?

> But ... if you look at it from the stand point of linearity
> (melodie and linear interval relation) which produce a descending
> harmonic march from D to C to Bm ... it does not stand so strongly ...
> but again if you insist I have no problem calling it both, as both
> are right,

That's right, because

1) ( a# IS a transition note from a to h ) = NOT D+ because its D

2) ( a# is NOT a transition note from a ) = D+ becoming F#
and this is meaning the value of this this measure as
related to the progression to the following measure is F#
rather than D or whatever.

2) ( a# is NOT as transition note from a# ) = D becoming D+ becoming F#
and this is meaning the value of this this measure as
related to the progression to the following measure is F#
rather than D or whatever.

That is because of the 'distributed verticallitty': one bass per each triad.

> orange pulling towards red or orange pulling towards yellow!
> And it passes so fast like these little water drops on a Rubens nude ...

OK, we are both right.

[Richard Jernigan]

Hasn't anyone noticed that in the Fibonacci series 8 is followed by 13, not 11?

RNJ

[Fadosolrélamisi]

On Sunday, January 6, 2013 5:25:26 PM UTC-8, Richard Jernigan wrote:
> Hasn't anyone noticed that in the Fibonacci series 8 is followed by 13, not 11?
>
>
>
> RNJ

Yes ... it's been pointed with great subtlety by John, in the 11th post!

Alain

[hallj...@gmail.com]

Thanks Alain, couldn't have said it better!

John

[dsi1]

11th... 11th... OMG! It's Synchronicity! :-O

[Fadosolrélamisi]

On Sunday, January 6, 2013 6:48:00 PM UTC-8, dsi1 wrote:

2 x 11 ... That must be a false Fibonacci Tau!

[Fadosolrélamisi]

You must be crazy John! It's for me to thank you for not loosing your time during the holidays and for offering us this helpful BWV 998 prelude analysis!
Thanks! (By the way one of the meaning of the word teacher means to help!)

Alain

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:09:35 -0800, halljohn08 wrote:

> Speaking of Bach, I just posted an analysis of the Prelude from Prelude,
> Fugue and Allegro BWV 998 if anyone would like to take a look at it. PDF
> at end:
>
> http://www.johnhallguitar.com/blog/prelude_analysis_bwv_998_by_js_bach/
>

> I had to do something productive over this break.
>
> John

Productive or deceptive? Do you understand that your
/harmonic-only/ analysis has absolutely nothing to
do with how Bach wrote? Regards, daveA

--
Guitar teaching materials and original music for all styles and levels.
Site: http://www.openguitar.com (()) eMail: d.raleig...@gmail.com
Contact: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html"

[JPD]

On Jan 9, 7:55 am, David Raleigh Arnold <d.raleigh.arn...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Site:http://www.openguitar.com(()) eMail: d.raleigh.arn...@gmail.com
> Contact:http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html"

Just briefly, how did Bach write?

[Andrew Schulman]

On Jan 9, 3:27 pm, JPD <googlegroo...@guitarist.com> wrote:
> Just briefly, how did Bach write?
>
>

Briefly? C'mon, details!

Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

On Jan 9, 3:27 pm, JPD <googlegroo...@guitarist.com> wrote:

> Just briefly, how did Bach write?
>

BTW, Beethoven described him as the "Urvater der Harmonie", "original
father of harmony". Of course, today, we would describe him as the
"original mutha of harmony".

Andrew

[Steven Bornfeld]

Is Bach buried in Grant's Tomb?

[Andrew Schulman]

On Jan 9, 4:29 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> > BTW, Beethoven described him as the "Urvater der Harmonie", "original
> > father of harmony".  Of course, today, we would describe him as the
> > "original mutha of harmony".
>
> > Andrew
>
> Is Bach buried in Grant's Tomb?
>

The King of Non Sequiturs strikes again! Granted of course that this
was a non sequitur.

Groucho Marx

[David Raleigh Arnold]

Are you kidding? The chords and chord names in the
analysis had not been invented yet. The "Treatise
on Harmony" was published in his lifetime, but he
said that he never changed his ways. He was working
with modes and counterpoint and continuo, and a
meaningful analysis of his work would show his
work on his terms, or at least reconcile his
terms with the harmonic analysis. Harmonic analyses
do not necessarily contribute anything to the
understanding of a musical work.

Analyze this:

http://www.openguitar.com/files/fantasy.pdf

--
Guitar teaching materials and original music for all styles and levels.

[Andrew Schulman]

On Jan 9, 9:32 pm, David Raleigh Arnold <d.raleigh.arn...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Are you kidding? The chords and chord names in the
> analysis had not been invented yet.
>

Yet he knew something about figured bass.
>
> Analyze this:
>
OK!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1uQ3SQEPko

Andrew

[JPD]

On Jan 9, 6:32 pm, David Raleigh Arnold <d.raleigh.arn...@gmail.com>

Kidding? No. I'm not asking you to repeat your assertion that Bach
didn't write according to bebop changes. I'm asking how he /did/
write, not how he /didn't/. Your answer is that "he was working with
modes and counterpoint and continuo." If you have a little more to say
about that, I'm interested.

[David Raleigh Arnold]

So? I'm not the guy claiming to have done an analysis of Bach, OK?

--
Guitar teaching materials and original music for all styles and levels.

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:38:57 -0800, Andrew Schulman wrote:

> On Jan 9, 9:32 pm, David Raleigh Arnold <d.raleigh.arn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Are you kidding? The chords and chord names in the analysis had not
>> been invented yet.
>>
> Yet he knew something about figured bass.

Figured bass is basso continuo or continuo for short.

Regards, daveA

--
Guitar teaching materials and original music for all styles and levels.

[Andrew Schulman]

On Jan 10, 10:37 am, David Raleigh Arnold <d.raleigh.arn...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:38:57 -0800, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 9:32 pm, David Raleigh Arnold <d.raleigh.arn...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Are you kidding? The chords and chord names in the analysis had not
> >> been invented yet.
>
> > Yet he knew something about figured bass.
>
> Figured bass is basso continuo or continuo for short.
>
>

Figured bass is musical notation used to indicate intervals, chords,
and non-chord tones, in relation to a bass note. It was how the
continuo player knew, among other things, what chords to play over the
bass note. There is plenty of info online for anyone to quickly
figure out (no pun intended) this little thread tangent and its
relationship to why Beethoven thought Bach was a harmonious figure.

John used modern chord symbols, akin to the figured bass Bach would
have used

Andrew

[Mental Handle]

With figured bass any sort of alternations like 4+, 5-, 5+ or 6+ were
pretty common.

> John used modern chord symbols, akin to the figured bass Bach would
> have used

What was different in this period is the use of the Xmin5-/7 5-voice
chords in terms of "todays" diatonic functional harmony which were
originally 4-voice chords in 4-voice parts "without the bass note"
as most folks do well know.

BTW:
What I said is, just that the D D+ F# sequence which was called by John
just as one D+ should be a F#(6-5) in my opinion, but everyone of course
including John is "allowed" to analyze each piece of music he wants viewed
with the eyes of "todays" diatonic function or functional harmony from Hugo
Riemann. There is no problem at all with this and John did a great Job.

Rgds
-
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMentalHandle

[Mental Handle]

Sorry, typo:

> With figured bass any sort of alternations

Please read: alterations

[David Raleigh Arnold]

No one says that basso continuo
is not harmony, but it is a completely different system
from basso fundamentale. Are you saying that Beethoven
didn't know that? I did two years of university harmony,
using Piston, courses in 16th and 18th century counterpoint
and fugue, and you didn't. You think that modern
chord symbols convey the same information as continuo, and
that chord symbols therefore are suitable for analysis of
music written by Bach, who never used them.
I respectfully disagree. The best way to analyze a composer
is by using the system that he himself used, and the
result of using any other system is bound to be marginal
at best.

[JPD]

On Jan 11, 11:36 am, David Raleigh Arnold <d.raleigh.arn...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The best way to analyze a composer
> is by using the system that he himself used, and the
> result of using any other system is bound to be marginal
> at best.

I had a friend who insisted I was wasting my time reading Nietzsche in
English instead of German. He also said I was his only friend.

[Steven Bornfeld]

LOL!