What The Heck Is Neo-Riemannian Analysis?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 чер 2024
- Mailing List: eepurl.com/bCTDaj
Practice Exercises: 12tonevideos.blogspot.com/2016...
Tonic Function Video: • Tonic Function
All About Minor (Relative Major/Minor) Video: • All About Minor
Modal Interchange Video: • Modal Interchange
1000 Subscriber Q&A (Chromatic Mediants and Hexatonic Poles) Video: • 1000-Subscriber Q&A!
Modes (Locrian) Video: • Modes
Facebook: / 12tonevideos
Twitter: / 12tonevideos
Email: 12tonevideos@gmail.com
Next: • Polyrhythm of the Night
Last: • Augmented: The Rebel T...
"It's very simple", he said.
Heh. Ok, it's still pretty mathy, but it's just three transformations!
I laughed when you said simple after seeing the further transformation at 2:10....Is there anyway you could explain the part where you get the D major? How is that a Lead Tone Transformation? Confused
@@Chilajuana From F#min to Dmaj
F# == F#
C# -> D
A == A
Relative to D Major this motion "C# -> D" is a leading tone resolution iirc
I'm a math nerd and immediately thought of Bernard Riemann instead of Hugo Riemann when you were talking about Riemann analysis lol.
Heh, yeah, I often get the two confused...
lol i got convinced bernard was actually called hugo x]
All the coolest people are called Riemann!
i love you all :P
actually, the riemann zeta function does show up when you're working with TOP tunings, and thus equal temperaments also :) xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/The+Riemann+Zeta+Function+and+Tuning
For those of you who've studied Neo-Riemannian theory before, I decided not to use the term "klang" here because I feel like it obfuscates more than it helps in terms of the basics, but I do intend to come back and cover tonnetz and I'll probably include it then.
Klang Klang Klang went the trolley 🎵
Ring Ring Ring went the bell 🎵
This channel is gold.
Thanks!
Lady Gaga’s latest album is called Chromatica and incorporates a lot of Riemann’s theoretical contributions mainly his theory of harmonic functions, dualism and negative harmonies.
I was actually doing a search for Schenkerian analysis and found this. So, if you are pondering ideas for future episodes, there's one you might consider! Although I do find this one interesting.
Another level of understanding....great..
slowing down to 0.50, still takes time to understand.
love this video
Great vid! You put it nice and succinctly
Brother I love your videos! Always succinct and extremely helpful, keep em coming!!!!!!!
Ok, rreeeeaalllyyy late to the party, but before this video I've been messing around with this kind of stuff, and having a fair bit of fun with it. Really cool to know what it's called. I'm gonna mess around with compound chords for a bit. Thanks, 12Tone!!
Time to film one hour video on Schenkerian analysis!
Eagles' "In The City" chords at 2:14.
the analogies are strong on this channel, that 4D cube love it haha. I gotta dive into this stuff! seems like it can help me a lot with transitioning between chords without having to think around the key specifically.
Yeah, it's a little out there but it's super interesting and, if you're doing post-tonal stuff, pretty useful too!
Wowww! It's sooo... MATH! Loved It!
I really miss these videos
Great video this will help me understand Philip glasses music a lot better
I usually manage to follow youtube videos but you make me rewind hahah
You inspire me to want to review music theory and composition seriously again. I have a textbook that I am for some reason anxious to even touch. Maybe it's because I am afraid of and feel guilty about relearning things that I should already know as a minor in Music Theory and Composition, or maybe it's because I keep telling myself that I don't have the time, but deep inside, not even that deep actually, I want to get back into it. It's something that I love.
I totally get that feeling. It can be hard to pick things back up because you feel like you've fallen so far from where you were, but trust me, it'll be fun to get back up on that horse! Maybe start with something you never really studied before so you'd be starting from scratch anyway, then work your way back to the review stuff?
12tone I may try that. Thanks.
The best thing about re-learning something is that you get to come at it with a whole new set of life experience in which to frame it. Go for it!
@@12tone I kept watching more videos about music theory, and now I'm more into it than I have ever been. I'm actually working on a studio album now.
This is great.
Very cool stuff. I wish there was 12gummybears at the end tho
This is awesome! Thank you!
Thanks!
All in PDF Please!!!!!
Good video
I LOVE YOU 12TONE. 🤭
Great information and well - explained. Thank you.
I am very curious. What led you to choose NOT to base this video on the tonnetz, which is a perfect fit with this analytical approach and is ideally suited to a visual medium such as UA-cam?
Would this analysis be applicable to a band like muse who use many secondary dominants and other aspects of functional harmony?
Which song you had in mind?
Now do a video on Karg-Elert's polarity theory.
Thanks! A super helpful overview! Do you have a video that illustrates the more complicated 7th chords as addressed in 4:10? I suspect these are covered in Dmitri Tymoczko's Geometry of Music book, the first few chapters of which I trudged through and never ultimately succeeded beyond. :-(
I have that book too! Absolute gold, that book!
@@stephjohnsons Yes I loved that book read it the whole summer of 2021!
Power towers model for 7th chords
Hey 12tone can you (or anyone else) explain to my what exactly is going on when you are doing compound transposition? The first row makes perfect sense to me, but from then on i seem to get different results. For example you start with an A (a, c#, e) and do a L transformation (lovering the fundamental note a semitone) which gives you C#m/g#, then you apply an R transformation (Lifting og lowering the 5th of the chord a whole tone), which to me should be the notes: a#, e, c# (lifting the g# in C#m a whole tone) or f#, e, c# (lowering the g# a whole tone). However you seem to get the tones g#, b, e (E/g#) which means you lowered the fundamental in C#m a whole tone. Which does not correspond to the rules presented earlier? Is it because you are not supposed to think about the transpositions intervalically but in terms of keys. Since E major is the relative major to C# minor?. Is there something i am missing? hope someone can help. And thank you for the great content. Kind regards Jacob
Nvm. I figured it out. The thing is you move the 5th up a whole tone when moving from major to minor and the fundamental a whole tone down when moving from minor to major, when you are using the relative transformation.
I was almost following this up to near minute 3:00 and i was laughing by minute 4:00, excellent work, playing with the transformations will make it clearer for sure.
I totally got it.
1:30 Didnt you move a WHOLE step down to get that Am chord?
You gotta do David Kopp next!
And now we begin to understand all MUSE songs.
I know Take A Bow uses this, is it the only one?
really interesting, though as an improviser my first thought is this: the farther "down" the chords are, the more i actually have to use functional context for the chords to be useful. While I feel throwing in a Mediant is kind of risk free, I cant imagine not taking the Amajor to g minor to D overf# for some reason. Just my first impression. I might also not be making sense right now
I think that makes sense: You're saying that the further down the tree you go, the more work has to go into justifying the move? That seems pretty reasonable, assuming I'm interpreting you correctly. They're more distant chords, so it's less likely you'll have a straightforward reason to do it. Thanks for sharing!
@@12tone What about A Major to D/F# (I - IV), G minor (V -i), E/G# to A Major (V-I)?
I thought he wad Riemann the mathematician.
analize please if you can and want some of Chris Potter (tenor sax) ideas/interpretation. Thank you for your work!
Thanks for the suggestion! At this point, though, we receive so many song requests that we can really only focus on the ones from our Patreon patrons. We just don't have the time to look at every song that comes in, unfortunately. There's a link to our Patreon in the video description if you're interested, though!
The mind blower is Allan Holdsworth's concept
Is there a more efficient way to analyze extended chords, such as within the progression Emaj, G#aug9/F#, Fmaj7b3, C#aug9, Emaj? These shapes are interlocked on the lattice, but when you try to outline their relationships to one another (how many individual notes are changed between each next chord,) you run into the issue of having a triad versus an extended chord and accounting for the extra notes. Do you write, for example, E G# B E G# for the Emaj chord to make up for the added notes? It would be cool if you could express your opinion on this little issue. Thanks.
Use another harmonic theory I think Jazz would be better there.
Is there a version of neo-Riemannian analysis that also takes into account triads that aren't just minor or major? E.g. sus2, sus4, dim, aug?
Actually I think that augmented chords are a part of it. Check out hexatonic cycles and Weitzmann regions!
Try the chord system of Pat Martino changing augmented chords to minor and major. And try dim7 to dom7 and m7b5.
Wow, this is actually a really cool way at constructing voice-leading harmonies. I actually had to do the homework on this one. Also you mentioned modal interchange again, and I remembered a question I had: when you're writing a figured bass analysis, how do you account for a modal chord, or when you pivot into another key or something?
+Audio Anomaly That's a great question! In figured bass, if you're using a chord that has a chromatically altered tone, all you have to do is put the appropriate accidental next to the altered tone's number in the figuration. For instance, if you're playing in E major and you want to play an A minor, you'd write your bass note A, then in the figuration you'd write b3. (Some people would use a natural sign, since the actual note is C natural, but I prefer to always use the accidental for clarity.) If it's in an inversion, of course, you would apply it to the appropriate note in that inversion's figure. For instance, if in the above example we wanted that A minor to be in second inversion, we would write the bass note E, then write b6/4.
This applies to any non-diatonic chord. Secondary dominants, diminished 7ths, augmented 6ths, and other chromatic features all use the same technique. If you modulate, you can also use it, or you can change key signatures mid-piece if you don't want to write all the accidentals in the figuration. Whether that's worthwhile probably depends on how long you're modulating for.
Alright, thank you! That's actually simpler than I thought it would be.
I stopped the video to think a bit about how to get to G- from A it occurred to me to just ii-V-i over which would require A-7b5 - D7b9 - G-6 right. So it makes sense to think of moving from the A Major chord to A Locrian (!) in that context. Not that this is the most expedient way to get there but it does shed light on how far away the two key centers are. As AMaj and A-7b5 only have the root in common.
7 Steps from Neo-Riemann? ... well 6, anyway. Not as catchy as Kevin Bacon I suppose.
Yeah, when you look at it like that, it becomes pretty clear just how much distance there is between them...
As I know almost nothing about music theory, could someone plz put it in simple words for me? I want to explain, briefly, what is it and what it does in my academic writing.
Simply it connects musical events rather than labeling chord by chord!
1:21 "the fifht of the major triad becomes the root of the minor one" Error, Danger
Um, I don't see how A major and G minor are so distant. I mean you can easily do this:
Gm -> G -> D -> A
By this logic, including circle of fifths motion as separate movements to dominant and subdominant, Gm and A major have a distance of 3, not 5 like in Neo-Riemannian theory.
C minor actually has the same distance because you can do this:
Cm -> C -> Am -> A(which is the same length path that you find in Neo Riemannian theory)
F minor also isn't that far because you can do this:
Fm -> F -> C -> Am -> A
It has a distance of 4.
Circle of fifths is a different theory and equally good!
You hold the pen weird. Not even just being a lefty, but it looks like you don't use your thumb or fingers for control. It all comes from the wrist
(That's what she said)
What would work on 7th chords then?
Power towers model for 7th chords
I think its time for the breakdown of the system for navigating 7th chords. *Nudge *Nudge
Power towers model for 7th chords
I just watched Jacob Collier's mindblowing 'theory interview' before rewatching this, do you think (if you've seen it) that he falls into this line?
I actually just watched that earlier today! It was really interesting to hear his thoughts, they're very different from how I tend to approach theory but clearly he has a deep understanding of the field. I think there's some relation to Neo-Riemannian theory, in that he seemed much more focused on voice-leading than on chord functions, but it felt sort of different too. He seemed very focused on chord voicings and the roles of individual chord tones within the larger whole, which isn't really what Neo-Riemannian theory is about. It seemed like a compatible but not identical philosophy, if that makes sense.
Very detailed lesson. Lots of great information but you need to talk faster! :-) Thank you for this video.
Fast as fast can be
I dig your videos, you just talk a bit fast imo
how many archives manuscript papers you have😂
you better write from right to left
who else is slowing down every of these videos to around 0.85 to get the chance to follow :D
Aqualung vid sent me.
what about some example of music that built this way?
eden rubin this reminds me a bit of E minor Nocturne by Chopin, even it's using triads not allowed here and using some whole steps.
A lot of music from 19th century Romanticism utilize these moves to some degree or another. By the Late Romantic these moves form a large part of the music. Wagner, Verdi, and Chopin are great examples. (I noticed another reply mentioning Chopin's Nocturne in E Minor, which I think is the perfect example.)
That said, these kind of techniques apply to a lot of music. Works by Steve Reich use these moves as well as jazz improvisers like Miles Davis and Bill Evans, although in more complicated ways than discussed in this video.
My personal favorite example of Neo-Riemannian moves is Arvo Part's The Beatitudes. (I wrote a paper demonstrating the various ways Neo-Riemannian analysis applies to the structure of that composition, so I'm quite biased here.)
Further Reading: Audacious Euphony by Richard Cohn
A Geometry of Music by Dmitri Tymoczko
tl;dr Wagner, Chopin, Miles Davis, and Steve Reich
I realise I said nocturne in e minor, but I meant Chopin's prelude in e minor
check out some Opeth songs, some of the chord progressions they use (especially in their "softer" songs) use this sort of harmonic structure
+eden rubin Some of Prokofiev's progressions were explained to me by my music professor using this analysis. The only one I can remember being parts of his Cantata for the 20th Anniversary of the October Revolution, which is an incredible piece of music.
Good info, but too fast. I dislike this modern concept of video where everything has to be lightning fast.
It's something that this channel does for some reason. I don't understand why he chooses to make his videos so damn fast
I'm not a neo-riemannian myself, but let me object on that last statement.
On the contrary, bring a locrian borrow only makes reinforces the idea that those chords are actually so distant transformation wise.
In fact, locrian mode is an absolutely arbitrary mode people invented to fill the empty spot of a seventh degree (of a major scale) mode. It has never been used on historical modal music, and the relation on the chords with the first degree of the mode may be an example of why that. You can't exactly "feel" locrian as you would "feel" dorian, so strange of a mode it is, etc.
being*
Maybe I phrased it poorly, but that was actually my point as well! I wasn't trying to imply that C minor was close to A major (As you say, it's clearly not!) but that, in standard functional harmony, B minor is effectively a lot closer, despite being the same number of transformations away, and that therefore in a "regular" progression, strict Neo-Riemmannian analysis may not always be the best tool for understanding chord relationships. Sorry if that wasn't clear!
Excellent video. I've always felt that the "Leading Tone" (L) transformation is badly named, and I wish Neo-Riemannians would find another term for it. Both "Parallel" and "Relative" express the reciprocity that exists between the two chords, and both comfortably convey the two-way street that exists with these transformations. C and Am are the relative major and minor of each other; likewise C and Cm are the parallel major and minor of each other. By contrast, this reciprocity does not exist for L: you can get from C to Em by introducing the leading tone of C, but going in the opposite direction, Em to C, the leading tone of Em (D#) plays no role.
turned the speed down to 0.75 and then found i could actually enjoy the video
This is group theory masquerading as harmonic analysis.
tick tick tick tick tock... is your intro in 5/4 ?
Could be! It was meant to be 4/4, but it sounds worse with an accent on the downbeat of the first bar, so maybe it's a 5/4 pickup?
12tone maybe it's 3 measures of 1/4 and then 1 measure of 2/4?
I'd heard it as one measure of 4/4 with one attack on each pulse, then another measure of 4/4 with an attack only on the first pulse.
Fuuuuuuthat
Dude moving your hand on the video that fast it’s really distracting
Riemann's theory is just not scientifically correct, and is now refuted, because all the reasoning is justified with a false premise which discalify any theory (negative harmony, etc) based on the unreal undertones / subharmonics.
Jacques Chailley demonstrate that in his book "Expliquer l'harmonie" (Explain Harmony).
I'm very hesitant of any claim that starts with the idea that artistic perception can be scientifically proven or disproven. I think you're right that the physical phenomena aren't there, but that doesn't mean people can't still hear it that way. Musical experience is too subjective to be rigorously falsifiable.
12tone
Yes, that's why in France the analysis theory taught is heterodox. And that's another reason to be very careful with neo-riemannian theory : it represent itself as a analysis theory which can be used to explain every harmonic movement from Monteverdi to Stockhausen. Historically, it's not possible.
12 Tone: 'Neo-Riemannian analysis is just a tool'
Me: No, you're just a tool
why do you always have to speed through these?? slow down man
if you made this half or third the speed it is, it could actually be informative. Unless this is not for education but for self display.
You can slow the speed down
wow, what a brilliant idea.and so obvious. genius.
I guess some people are just naturally slow, eh?
@@kalleklopsklopsmann1891 This video was so easy to understand. If you want examples worked out, work them out yourself, right?. You're just slow.