Lesson with Jordan (General theory and harmony, Composition)

So, Jordan. We talked some, and you gots some pieces you could show me. Let's start with that.

Just to be clear however, generally do harmony and analysis using the German function system (which has different names for things than the I-V-IV etc system.) However, I can do both things. If you have to give an exam (you mentioned one at least) or something, we can talk about what kind of material you need to be clear on and work on that.

Regardless of what system we use to name stuff, the theory is essentially the same. And, I rather make whatever theory we go over actual based on examples in the music literature from the period, so we'll probably be referencing Schubert, Mozart, and so on as we cover more ground. It's useless to know theory in an abstract vacuum (only exercises, etc) if it was used to write music in the first place.

So, post'em pieces and say what you'd like us to do or if you have something in mind you want to go over.

Alright. Here are a few of my best in terms of harmony. I look back at these an laugh, largely because I didn't really follow through. I got a few things down, and it sounded ok so I didn't really do anything or analyze.

The Overture I was quite proud of. In terms of Harmony, I think it is my best. Why isn't it very good? It has no form. It goes A section, then a Bridge... then a minor version of A section. then back to the original A section. it is repetitive, and the low brass will want to kill me. however, I think it's a good A section... it's just overdone.

The second one, the "symphony No 1 movement 1b" is actually a march. I like it, I think the harmony is good (if simple) and it works well. problem? unfinished. and no real ideas about how to continue. Thus, it is again, a good A section, but no follow through.

What I would like out of these lessons is two fold :

-Harmony. I want to know how to do it better, more reliably. possibly learn how certain things make certain sounds. This is where the analysis comes in. (I don't know anything about the German notation you were talking about... so either you show me that, or we use standard Roman numeral notation).

- Expansion/ Development. I think that I am fairly good at writing jazz charts and jingles because I can come up with very good small ideas. I don't really know how to expand them into overtures, concerti, or even symphonies. That would be very good, and I would take a lot out of that, I think.

symphony No 1_Movement 1b.mid

The Overture.mid

Well, for one, you got some pretty nice things going here. But, unfortunately, the orchestration is very much lacking. The harmony seems alright, it's got a lot of character to it. If you want to develop these pieces more, I would really advise first working a little on orchestration first, and making a proper score. I can give you a lot of pointers on how to really make use of a lot of the instruments you're naming here. I doubt you have any specific purpose for having all FOUR types of clarinets, or two of each tuba! Or 8 horns, which is really, really, a lot.

The structures seem alright, and I can really just give you a lot of options on how to expand them, however I think that before we do that it's better that you know how to work the instruments better since while I notice you're doing some stuff with the instrument groups, you're not taking full advantage of the HUGE orchestra you're using here.

So, before that, a couple of questions:

Have you tried to work with smaller pieces? Small ensembles or solo pieces for example?

Also, do you have proper scores for these pieces you posted?

About the harmony naming and stuff, well, I'm a lot more comfortable working with the German system (which I think is better, personally) but I'm concerned with the incompatibility with systems predominant in your country's academic circles. That's why I mentioned that maybe it'd be easier for you to work with the roman number system.

Though, like I said before, the difference is only in names. The actual theory is exactly the same, and in fact you can just overdub one system with the other.

Here's the system I call "german" system:

Diatonic function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which works wonderful for all the 18th/19th century harmony and analysis. When I talk about German I mean the actual names, though the system is also taught pretty much everywhere (with different names.)

So, if you don't mind, I suggest we work with this for the sake of brevity since it's designed with tonal-historical analysis in mind.

Alright. So :

I didn't really intend to write for such a large group. This was done a while ago, and now, with my new outlook, I'm realizing how dumb it is to have such ridiculous numbers.

The original scores are below. They were made using sibelius 4... I hope you can deal with that. if not, I think I can export them in different formats. not sure.

I have done very little by way of solo/ small ensemble work, but I am attempting to do a few more now that I know more. I used to not like them because they didn't offer enough flexibility. Now I think that is somewhat of a flawed view.

The German system seems easy enough, but it will take me a little while to adjust.

The Overture.sib

symphony No 1_Movement 1b.sib

Well, do you think maybe we can explore more chamber music or small ensembles? I'm sure that your assumption is based on the fact that you haven't had much work in these categories of music, or maybe not heard sufficient music or seen enough pieces.

I feel that maybe it's better for your handling of bigger ensembles like orchestras and such that we start small since you already have a lot of ideas. Plus, it's a lot easier to look at harmony if we're not worrying about what the oboes are doing and the clarinets' transposition and so on.

How much experience have you had actually with being in close contact to small ensembles, such as clarinet quartets, or string quartets, and so on? I mean have you heard these things live in concert or elsewhere? There's a lot of differences between each type of clarinet or string instrument that can be explored to bring varieties of texture, color, and so on to pieces even on a small set of instruments.

You also need to take into consideration all the techniques instruments can do, which by string instruments are a great many such as harmonics, different bow positions, and so on.

And, well, I use Sibelius 4 myself, so thankfully there's no problem with the scores.

If you want, we can work a little string quartet for example, look at form, harmony, and so on. And later, go back and see what we can do with your orchestra pieces which I personally think have a lot of potential, but need more careful writing, details, etc.

I would love that. Frankly, small ensembles are where I need the most work.

In terms of close contact with small groups : I have seen several string quartets live. I am currently starting a small chamber group at my school, for the higher level players. Right now we are playing the first movement of Bach's Double Violin Concerto in D minor, for example. So I would say that my experience level with those ensembles is limited, but I at least have the groundwork.

That's a really good way to get to know the whole dynamic that ensemble pieces produce.

Well, if we are going to be looking at chamber music altogether, do you have any preferences in style? If not, I'd like to recommend some listening material:

Hindemith's chamber pieces.

Bartok's string quartets and a piece called "Contrasts",

Beethoven's late string quartets,

Martinu's Madrigal trios for Oboe, Clarinet and Bassoon.

Debussy's sonatas for various instrument groups.

Very different stuff here, but I'm sure you can find stuff you like. I'm thinking you sort of dig the neoclassic-neoromantic thing so that's why I recommended Hindemith and so. I'm not sure how much experience you've had with modern music, but for now that's not very important.

What is important though, is that you decide on instruments you'd want to use and sketch out ideas for what you'd want to do with them. Like, if it helps you, you can start from certain harmonies or you can first come up with melodies. It's not important how exactly, but you need to gather up some material or an idea if what you'd like to do.

In the mean time, let's go over a little basic theory. I can see you're familiar with basic functions such as subdominant, dominant, tonic, and so on. The thing about harmony is that we'll need to look a little at what kind of "sound" you want to get at, which is why I asked before what kind of music you want to do.

Schumann for example uses a lot of the same harmony as, say, Mozart, but he does a lot of things which are for Mozart quite foreign such as changing the duration of suspensions and expanding on the instrument ranges. Schumann also for example uses a lot of chords in very different ways, or with different connections between tonal areas.

All that sort of factors into the overall "Sound" of it. If you want, we can look at basic form types along with harmony. Can you get yourself a score for Schumann's Kinderscenen, specially the "The poet speaks" piece?

I'm using Schumann as an example in this case because these short pieces are excellent examples of how tonality goes hand in hand with form, so that if you want to expand stuff you need to also think harmonically. Form is always dependent on tonality, and we can only really learn harmony if we look at it in the context of form and common usage.

If you're already familiar with basic forms such as the ABA simple song form and so on, please do say so, but otherwise I think we should be looking at that first.

So, in terms of preference : I love romantic period work. so yes. Schumann is great. Actually, so is basically everything else you suggested.

Yes, I do know what you said about the basic theory.

I do know about ABA format, but I think a review would be great. If you just gave me a primer, I could be sure, but you don't have to go very intensely into it, seeing as how it's just to jog my memory.

as for all of those songs you provided, I would be really quite grateful if you could provide links. I don't really know where to find that stuff on the net. If you don't either, that's fine, I'm sure I could look hard enough and figure something out. BUT, if you know a good place, it would be quicker.

So, in terms of preference : I love romantic period work. so yes. Schumann is great. Actually, so is basically everything else you suggested.

Yes, I do know what you said about the basic theory.

I do know about ABA format, but I think a review would be great. If you just gave me a primer, I could be sure, but you don't have to go very intensely into it, seeing as how it's just to jog my memory.

as for all of those songs you provided, I would be really quite grateful if you could provide links. I don't really know where to find that stuff on the net. If you don't either, that's fine, I'm sure I could look hard enough and figure something out. BUT, if you know a good place, it would be quicker.

YouTube - Bart

sorry about the delay... busy, busy weekend.

so, in a quick summary :

love the Bartok. awesome stuff. never heard those contrasts before, and they were awesome.

Beethoven is always awesome, and I enjoy his work quite a bit.

I am not a huge fan of Debussy. there are some of his piano works that I don't mind, but as far as that particular sonata, I'm not big on it.

finally, I had never heard of Hindemith before, and he's awesome. very much a fan.

Great! We can look a little more into Bartok and Hindemith, and that sort of thing later on. But first, I'd like to look at a piece with you:

http://www.piano-stieler.de/klaviernoten/Der%20Dichter%20spricht.pdf

It's from Schumann, the last piece from the Kinderscenen. It's very simple, but it does cover pretty much some fundamental basics of harmony and characteristics of romantic music. Plus it's a pretty clear cut example of an ABA song form.

I'd be good if you listened to the piece also:

YouTube - Schumann The Poet Speaks Op.15 (The dude in his PJs plays pretty OK, haha.)

Once you've gotten a feel for it, we'll look at the harmony, so just tell me whenever you're ready.

PS: No problem about the delay, btw.

alright. it seems to be a fairly simple piece. I'm ready to examine it.

Alrighty. This small piece is structured in a simple A-B-A song form, which is to say there is a theme followed by a contrast (in the relative minor if it's in major, in the dominant if it's in minor, and so on) and then the return of the first part. Some A-B-A forms look more like A - B - A - B, since the return of the A part can also come with the return of the contrast. In this piece that's not the case.

By this piece there's also a curiosity, there are no measures to speak of during the contrast part, which is heavily influenced by opera's recitative form structure where the singer moves quasi-freely upon a solid harmonic base. Recitative literally means to recite, so the point of these sections in an opera is to have the singer talk/expose clearly. As it turns out, this can be seen also as a consequence from this piece's name "The poet speaks." Schumann no doubt took that from the opera and applied it here, to symbolize the poet speaking.

That would be the B part, with the recitative-like segment. After, comes the reprise of the A part and the piece ends.

Let's look at the harmony now in the A part.

The piece begins with a dominant 7th chord in 3rd inversion (7th in bass, the C) which resolves as in tradition to tonic in 1st inversion. This start by itself is also pretty characteristic of romantic, specially Schumann's harmony. Traditionally D7 chords don't just show up at the beginning of a piece in such inversion, much less on an accentuated beat. It's usual for pieces to begin with the dominant, often with the chord being off-beat (and tonica being on an accentuated beat.)

However, the harmony is pretty clear, D7-T, with a D7 again but in second inversion (5th in bass) and then again T in 1st inversion. Just to clear up, D7 refers to the D F A C chord, T to the G major chord.

On measure 3 is where the harmony starts becoming a little bit more complex. There's a sixte ajout

I hope I didn't alienate you too much with the previous post! It's a little long and complicated, but well. Schumann ain't necessarily easy to explain.

Maybe we can use a different approach if you want, too. We can do part-analysis and part exercises at the same time, rather than divide them into big chunks. Maybe it's easier for you to see what is done if you take some time to try it out yourself too.

I apologize.

First off, no, it's not too big. I like this format, and what I read out of it just now is quite good. here's the issue :

exams.

I simply don't have time to analyize this thing until next week. so, if it's ok with you, I would really appreciate putting this on hold for maybe a week. my last exam will be on monday the 23rd... but I may be able to sneak in some stuff before that.

Thanks, and I'm really sorry about putting this on hold for now.

No problem! Thanks for telling me, too.

Just ring when you're ready and we can pick it up again.

Great. Thanks.

Just in case you're still around, I'll be discussing this piece and some other stuff in the other lesson thread with Voce here:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/lesson-voce-analysis-history-counterpoint-harmony-15977.html

so I don't have to repeat myself :>