Uhhh, uhhh, wow. This was over my head. But I'm short so I'm used to that. I understood the first part, and then it got into the weeds. So I smoked some weed and will get back to this when I have some more music theory under my fingers. Merci beaucoup. BTW I'm excited to learn more from this.
Can you please make more videos explaining de Cube trio, octatonic regions, boretz regions an transitional chords beetween them? Basically all chapter 7 from Cohn's last book. Thanks
0:00 - “congratulations, you have completed the 5 core semesters of undergraduate theory” damn, all i did was click on the video. sucks to be anyone who paid for this shit
in tonal analyses, yes, Ab Cb Eb is absolutely the proper spelling. But with these analytical techniques, we have to assume enharmonic equivalency. For the purposes of this study, Ab B Eb is no different from G# B Eb or any other combination. Using pitch class numbers could work better, say, if we just called it {8 e 3}.
Thanks for the video. I appreciate the explanation and the Brahms example is a great way to illustrate the concept, but I cringed every time you mispronounced Key vocabulary words such as "Klang" and "Tonnetz." Oops.
cool concept, but i have to say some of this stuff feels like just inventing concepts for the sake of inventing concepts, such as drawing the cube paths- they come across as jargon for jargon's sake.
What a load of wankery just to explain a simple Brahms example. Just how is this supposed to give insight in what Brahms was thinking when writing that progression?
It's not supposed to give insight into Brahms was thinking. If that's what you're looking for in music theory, you'll be permanently disappointed, because it's impossible to do. What it does show however is one possible logic to comprehend the model that Brahms composed in that case. This model is reproductible (you could compose something using this logic) and occurs in many pieces: it does a good job at explaining the occurence of certain cyclical processes in romantic music. However since neo-riemannian theory was born in the 1990's mostly, nobody is claiming that Brahms was thinking that way.
Any useful books about neo-riemannian theory? I'm a musicology student and I'm so interested to learn about these more deeply. Great video
"You have completed the five courses [...]" (Sweating and tugging my collar after getting here by a different path)
exactly! 😂
a whole new world unravels, thanks for sharing.
This is very well explained. I will be using this for reference.
My brain is crying.
lost it when Beat it started playing in 7:43 xD
OMGGG, I’m so happy for this video, I miss u buddy!
For a moment I thought I was going to watch a video about math.
You did. 😊
Yeah. I was thinking of pre-integral calculus.
Tonnetz is ton-netz, literally "tone net"
Great video ! Tonnetz is a German word, it is supposed to be pronounced "Tone-netz"
Uhhh, uhhh, wow. This was over my head. But I'm short so I'm used to that. I understood the first part, and then it got into the weeds. So I smoked some weed and will get back to this when I have some more music theory under my fingers.
Merci beaucoup. BTW I'm excited to learn more from this.
Just leave alone. I'm sick o learning. If I was a little child I'd have an excuse.
Can you please make more videos explaining de Cube trio, octatonic regions, boretz regions an transitional chords beetween them? Basically all chapter 7 from Cohn's last book. Thanks
Yes, please!
0:00 - “congratulations, you have completed the 5 core semesters of undergraduate theory”
damn, all i did was click on the video. sucks to be anyone who paid for this shit
This is AWESOME!
1:24 Camelot!
so basically coltrane changes ;)
5:41 Illuminati confirmed
Great explanation, however Ab- is Ab Cb Eb not Ab B Eb, isn't it?
in tonal analyses, yes, Ab Cb Eb is absolutely the proper spelling. But with these analytical techniques, we have to assume enharmonic equivalency. For the purposes of this study, Ab B Eb is no different from G# B Eb or any other combination. Using pitch class numbers could work better, say, if we just called it {8 e 3}.
That time when you're looking for something on UA-cam and you realize you know that voice... Hi Ash!
Don't forget Karg-Elert!
obrigado mais artigos
tooooo difficult....
Thanks for the video. I appreciate the explanation and the Brahms example is a great way to illustrate the concept, but I cringed every time you mispronounced Key vocabulary words such as "Klang" and "Tonnetz." Oops.
Crikey.
cool concept, but i have to say some of this stuff feels like just inventing concepts for the sake of inventing concepts, such as drawing the cube paths- they come across as jargon for jargon's sake.
What a load of wankery just to explain a simple Brahms example. Just how is this supposed to give insight in what Brahms was thinking when writing that progression?
It's not supposed to give insight into Brahms was thinking. If that's what you're looking for in music theory, you'll be permanently disappointed, because it's impossible to do.
What it does show however is one possible logic to comprehend the model that Brahms composed in that case. This model is reproductible (you could compose something using this logic) and occurs in many pieces: it does a good job at explaining the occurence of certain cyclical processes in romantic music.
However since neo-riemannian theory was born in the 1990's mostly, nobody is claiming that Brahms was thinking that way.
True, the guy is a bit of a Krelboyne, but I actually found this pretty useful and wrote a number of interesting chord progressions as a result.