The variations of this piece are not based on the chord progression of the aria, but the bass line serves as a sort of guideline, although sometimes other parameters may receive priority instead of following this bass line, so he sometimes even changes or skips the notes of the default bass line.
I usually don't watch piano videos using that method of presentation, but I respect your knowledge and watched...and learned. What App is that? I know I didn't like a pitch monitoring software when I first saw Fil of Wings of Pegasus use it, but now I'm using it to try to sing, without having my neighbours compain.
1. G (I) 2. A minor (ii) 3. D7 (V7) 4. G (I) 5. C (IV) 6. G/B (I with a bass note) 7. A minor (ii) 8. D7 (V7) 9. G (I) 10. E minor (vi) 11. A minor (ii) 12. D7 (V7) 13. G (I) ?
fair enough. of course, it's trivial to find a pdf of the Goldbergs on line. i've made a pro-active choice about notation on this channel, and you really won't find much conventional notation in my explanations or descriptions, despite my own iron-clad commitment to musical literacy.
Thanks for the reply in this regard. May I suggest selecting the 'show note' in Logic piano roll?Maybe that would be a compromise in some situations? I like seeing the name of the note in piano roll when I do editing. Your lessons drove me to the score and then to write out my own finale chart. AT that point I could improv a guitar part, create a guitar chord sequence and a tune derived from these chords. Thank you very much. Im looking forward to going through your Logic videos.@@ImpliedMusic
I think you’ve simplified the harmony a little too much, and in so doing have omitted some fairly crucial chords that help to give the progression it’s character. I’m not talking about all the little twiddly bits that add suspensions and extensions to the chords, I’m taking about the fundamental implied triads. For example… To my ear, there’s a clearly implied Em prior to the first A7. Granted, the only notes present are those common to both chords, but in the absence of contradictory information, my brain naturally defaults to the chord that (a) is in the key we’ve established, and (b) is in root position. It’s only when the bass rises to the C#, instead of the expected B, that an A7 is established. To my ear, there is an unmistakeable brightening from a minor chord (Em) to a major (A7) that comes only with the arrival of the chromatic note C#. Similarly, I hear a Bm where you have the first re-appearance of the G. Again, only the notes common to both chords are initially present, and my brain intuitively defaults to the one in root position. It’s only when the G arrives in the bass, simultaneously with the E to F move in the melody (the major sixth and minor seventh respectively of G) that Bm is contradicted and thus transforms into an A7.
Then why not have something on the left hand side of the screen to identify which notes the bars represent. But there is nothing - just lines floating in space. There seems to be an opportunity to teach people to read music.@@ImpliedMusic
@@ImpliedMusicAs one of the people who doesn’t read notation, I very much appreciate the midi piano-roll presentation. But I agree that it would be helpful to readers and non-readers alike to have the names of the notes and/or the vertical piano keyboard graphic visible at the left of screen, so you had a reference for what notes they actually are.
@@andreibaradayenka2016 you should reread the nonsense you wrote 😁What "directionality" you talk about? Listen again english and french suites, preludes, fugues - musical phrases have not conclusion, cadences, they are ready to go to eternity. It wouldn't be possible when you have "harmonic functions"
@chagk. It certainly sounds like chord progressions, but as you say Bach didn’t know chordal harmony as it wasn’t yet discovered. It’s amazing that the great composers did what they did as they also didn’t have theory or the terms we enjoy today.
Please stop talking about chords and chord progressions when talking about Bach. Chord theory was invented around the turn of the 19th-20th century. Before that, chords had no names and there was no chord theory. Bach chords were the result of counterpoint melodies as all the ancient composers thought in melodies within a certain key. Deciphering the chords which Bach produced is as productive as finding the higher mathematics in Stonehenge circle.
That’s absolutely not true. Ever heard of “basso continuo”? All Baroque composers understood chord cadence theory. The difference between now and then is that, whereas now we give chords names such as G7 or Am6, Baroque composers −including Bach in, for instance, his flute sonatas− would supply just the melody and a bass line, plus numbers one on top of another to let the harmony player −say, the harpsichord player− know what chord he/she should improvise over to accompany the melody. For instance, over a scored G note, you might get a 4 over a 6. In this case, the three notes from bottom to top would be G on the bass, plus the 6th of G (e) plus the 4th of G (c), making what we would now call a C/G. A good accompanist would know it was a C chord over a G bass, though he wouldn’t have called it that, and would improvise inversions and counter-melodies accordingly. Another example: you might get 7 over 3 above the scored G note. This would be G+b+f, which we would now call a G7. So Bach did know about chords and, yes, he did have favourite chord progressions.
@@pabzum Thank you for your detailed reaction, but I still disagree. Continuo basso is not a chord notation as we know it today, but more a guide for the player, how to improvise a chord. Please see also Wikipedia under “Basso Continuo” where is mentioned “The figured bass notation, described below, is a guide, but performers are also expected to use their musical judgment and the other instruments or voices (notably the lead melody and any accidentals that might be present in it) as a guide.” This means that the composer didn’t know a great deal about chords, but expected the performer to do his job, by adding chords to the composer’s composition. But apart from that: mentioning a note, for instance C and adding some numbers may indeed form a chord. I agree on that. But three notes written down in a partition may also form a chord. And many classical composers composed in counterpart and often had three simultaneous notes, which we consider today as a chord, and give it its proper name. But the question remains, was this also recognised by the composer himself as a chord or was it just a random moment where three musical lines (melodies) met one another in a nice way? It is a fact that these nice moments of three musical lines meeting each other have never systematically been investigated in those days. In other words, there was no chord theory. Even if there were several methods to notate three of more notes simultaneously, the most important aspect lacked, the insight that it weren’t not just haphazardly three notes that went well together, but that for instance the composition went well because of a minor or a seventh chord. And I must say, basso continuo is the clumsiest way to notate what should be a chord as it supposes the performer to do for a good part the composer’s job. A better way is to just write down the three desired notes one below the other in the partition. Then the composer does a better job. But also then, as already stated, was the composer aware that he/she was writing down a diminished, minor or for instance a seventh chord? As far as my knowledge reaches, no classical composer was aware of that and there exists no evidence that chord theory existed before about the year 1900. And the last aspect that I will mention is that classical composition are always composed in a key, like for instance Dflat. This indicates that all the composers of former centuries were thinking in keys and their scales, not in chords. Please google for any jazz, pop, blues or rock composition, here called XXXX, and what does Google mention? “XXXX, lyrics, chords” So all the post-1900 compositions, were composed around chords, while all the classical compositions were composed with a key in mind. Never ever, a classical composer has made a composition around well-sounding chords, they were always within the straight jacket of the key in which they were composing, apart from a modulation here and there in order to go to the next straight jacket of the next key used in a good part of the rest of the composition.
@@pabzum Thank you for your detailed reaction, but I still disagree. Continuo basso is not a chord notation as we know it today, but more a guide for the player, how to improvise a chord. Please see also Wikipedia under “Basso Continuo” where is mentioned “The figured bass notation, described below, is a guide, but performers are also expected to use their musical judgment and the other instruments or voices (notably the lead melody and any accidentals that might be present in it) as a guide.” This means that the composer didn’t know a great deal about chords, but expected the performer to do his job, by adding chords to the composer’s composition. But apart from that: mentioning a note, for instance C and adding some numbers may indeed form a chord. I agree on that. But three notes written down in a partition may also form a chord. And many classical composers composed in counterpart and often had three simultaneous notes, which we consider today as a chord, and give it its proper name. But the question remains, was this also recognised by the composer himself as a chord or was it just a random moment where three musical lines (melodies) met one another in a nice way? It is a fact that these nice moments of three musical lines meeting each other have never systematically been investigated in those days. In other words, there was no chord theory. Even if there were several methods to notate three of more notes simultaneously, the most important aspect lacked, the insight that it weren’t not just haphazardly three notes that went well together, but that for instance the composition went well because of a minor or a seventh chord. And I must say, basso continuo is the clumsiest way to notate what should be a chord as it supposes the performer to do for a good part the composer’s job. A better way is to just write down the three desired notes one below the other in the partition. Then the composer does a better job. But also then, as already stated, was the composer aware that he/she was writing down a diminished, minor or for instance a seventh chord? As far as my knowledge reaches, no classical composer was aware of that and there exists no evidence that chord theory existed before about the year 1900. And the last aspect that I will mention is that classical composition are always composed in a key, like for instance Dflat. This indicates that all the composers of former centuries were thinking in keys and their scales, not in chords. Please google for any jazz, pop, blues or rock composition, here called XXXX, and what does Google mention? “XXXX, lyrics, chords” So all the post-1900 compositions, were composed around chords, while all the classical compositions were composed with a key in mind. Never ever, a classical composer has made a composition around well-sounding chords, they were always within the straight jacket of the key in which they were composing, apart from a modulation here and there in order to go to the next straight jacket of the next key used in a good part of the rest of the composition.
Incredible ! Thank you for this treasure of a lesson
Thanks for this type of presentation!
Beautiful Distillation! Thank you
Thank you! Cheers!
thank you that was great insight to bach's harmonies
Thanks, Anna. That means a lot coming from you!
I would enjoy this so much more if you would include the spelled out names of the chords in your chart.
Thank you so much. Very beautifully explained. Very useful. Inspired to compose something based on this.
The variations of this piece are not based on the chord progression of the aria, but the bass line serves as a sort of guideline, although sometimes other parameters may receive priority instead of following this bass line, so he sometimes even changes or skips the notes of the default bass line.
thanks Derk
Really enjoyed this... thanks!
thanks!
Very nice video! 😃👌
Very good info I would prefer Music notes to MIDI although - Thank you for sharing the info -
Noted!
I usually don't watch piano videos using that method of presentation, but I respect your knowledge and watched...and learned. What App is that? I know I didn't like a pitch monitoring software when I first saw Fil of Wings of Pegasus use it, but now I'm using it to try to sing, without having my neighbours compain.
thanks. i'm using Logic Pro's timeline piano roll to display the notes.
1. G (I)
2. A minor (ii)
3. D7 (V7)
4. G (I)
5. C (IV)
6. G/B (I with a bass note)
7. A minor (ii)
8. D7 (V7)
9. G (I)
10. E minor (vi)
11. A minor (ii)
12. D7 (V7)
13. G (I)
?
Romanesca!!!
are these chords in root position, the voicing is part ID like to know, the DAW looks to be Cubase, is that so?
Chords are inverted to follow the bass line. This Logic.
I wish you would have kept the sheet music up. That is a lot easier to follow.
fair enough. of course, it's trivial to find a pdf of the Goldbergs on line. i've made a pro-active choice about notation on this channel, and you really won't find much conventional notation in my explanations or descriptions, despite my own iron-clad commitment to musical literacy.
Thanks for the reply in this regard. May I suggest selecting the 'show note' in Logic piano roll?Maybe that would be a compromise in some situations? I like seeing the name of the note in piano roll when I do editing. Your lessons drove me to the score and then to write out my own finale chart. AT that point I could improv a guitar part, create a guitar chord sequence and a tune derived from these chords. Thank you very much. Im looking forward to going through your Logic videos.@@ImpliedMusic
❤❤❤❤❤
I think you’ve simplified the harmony a little too much, and in so doing have omitted some fairly crucial chords that help to give the progression it’s character. I’m not talking about all the little twiddly bits that add suspensions and extensions to the chords, I’m taking about the fundamental implied triads.
For example… To my ear, there’s a clearly implied Em prior to the first A7. Granted, the only notes present are those common to both chords, but in the absence of contradictory information, my brain naturally defaults to the chord that (a) is in the key we’ve established, and (b) is in root position. It’s only when the bass rises to the C#, instead of the expected B, that an A7 is established. To my ear, there is an unmistakeable brightening from a minor chord (Em) to a major (A7) that comes only with the arrival of the chromatic note C#.
Similarly, I hear a Bm where you have the first re-appearance of the G. Again, only the notes common to both chords are initially present, and my brain intuitively defaults to the one in root position. It’s only when the G arrives in the bass, simultaneously with the E to F move in the melody (the major sixth and minor seventh respectively of G) that Bm is contradicted and thus transforms into an A7.
@@fromchomleystreet thanks for those insights!
lol, sounds like beethoven when you simplify it like that
yes! i guess we're all going to the same well.
2:35 You should play the song first and then speak.
agreed. a valid criticism i've since taken to heart in my later videos. thanks.
What's with the green lines? Easier to understand a musical score.
the great majority of my subscribers do not read music. the view is a DAW representation of the note events.
Then why not have something on the left hand side of the screen to identify which notes the bars represent. But there is nothing - just lines floating in space. There seems to be an opportunity to teach people to read music.@@ImpliedMusic
Yes. You’ll occasionally find notation in my tutorials. It’s not a fundamental part of my mission to teach notation however.
@@ImpliedMusicAs one of the people who doesn’t read notation, I very much appreciate the midi piano-roll presentation. But I agree that it would be helpful to readers and non-readers alike to have the names of the notes and/or the vertical piano keyboard graphic visible at the left of screen, so you had a reference for what notes they actually are.
Bach didn't know what is "chord progressions"...🤦♂️
Aria is 3-voice choral, you can't hear determined harmonic functions in Bach's music.
I am danish, but I am pretty sure I understand your comment and I find it very precise and informative! 😎
That is absolutely not true. Bach's music wouldn't have the directionality and intention that it does without it's intricate harmonic functions
@@andreibaradayenka2016 you should reread the nonsense you wrote 😁What "directionality" you talk about? Listen again english and french suites, preludes, fugues - musical phrases have not conclusion, cadences, they are ready to go to eternity. It wouldn't be possible when you have "harmonic functions"
Yada yada
@chagk. It certainly sounds like chord progressions, but as you say Bach didn’t know chordal harmony as it wasn’t yet discovered. It’s amazing that the great composers did what they did as they also didn’t have theory or the terms we enjoy today.
Please stop talking about chords and chord progressions when talking about Bach. Chord theory was invented around the turn of the 19th-20th century. Before that, chords had no names and there was no chord theory. Bach chords were the result of counterpoint melodies as all the ancient composers thought in melodies within a certain key. Deciphering the chords which Bach produced is as productive as finding the higher mathematics in Stonehenge circle.
@@JacobGestman thanks for your insight
That’s absolutely not true.
Ever heard of “basso continuo”?
All Baroque composers understood chord cadence theory.
The difference between now and then is that, whereas now we give chords names such as G7 or Am6, Baroque composers −including Bach in, for instance, his flute sonatas− would supply just the melody and a bass line, plus numbers one on top of another to let the harmony player −say, the harpsichord player− know what chord he/she should improvise over to accompany the melody.
For instance, over a scored G note, you might get a 4 over a 6. In this case, the three notes from bottom to top would be G on the bass, plus the 6th of G (e) plus the 4th of G (c), making what we would now call a C/G. A good accompanist would know it was a C chord over a G bass, though he wouldn’t have called it that, and would improvise inversions and counter-melodies accordingly.
Another example: you might get 7 over 3 above the scored G note. This would be G+b+f, which we would now call a G7.
So Bach did know about chords and, yes, he did have favourite chord progressions.
@@pabzum thanks.
@@pabzum Thank you for your detailed reaction, but I still disagree. Continuo basso is not a chord notation as we know it today, but more a guide for the player, how to improvise a chord. Please see also Wikipedia under “Basso Continuo” where is mentioned “The figured bass notation, described below, is a guide, but performers are also expected to use their musical judgment and the other instruments or voices (notably the lead melody and any accidentals that might be present in it) as a guide.” This means that the composer didn’t know a great deal about chords, but expected the performer to do his job, by adding chords to the composer’s composition.
But apart from that: mentioning a note, for instance C and adding some numbers may indeed form a chord. I agree on that. But three notes written down in a partition may also form a chord. And many classical composers composed in counterpart and often had three simultaneous notes, which we consider today as a chord, and give it its proper name. But the question remains, was this also recognised by the composer himself as a chord or was it just a random moment where three musical lines (melodies) met one another in a nice way? It is a fact that these nice moments of three musical lines meeting each other have never systematically been investigated in those days. In other words, there was no chord theory. Even if there were several methods to notate three of more notes simultaneously, the most important aspect lacked, the insight that it weren’t not just haphazardly three notes that went well together, but that for instance the composition went well because of a minor or a seventh chord.
And I must say, basso continuo is the clumsiest way to notate what should be a chord as it supposes the performer to do for a good part the composer’s job. A better way is to just write down the three desired notes one below the other in the partition. Then the composer does a better job. But also then, as already stated, was the composer aware that he/she was writing down a diminished, minor or for instance a seventh chord? As far as my knowledge reaches, no classical composer was aware of that and there exists no evidence that chord theory existed before about the year 1900.
And the last aspect that I will mention is that classical composition are always composed in a key, like for instance Dflat. This indicates that all the composers of former centuries were thinking in keys and their scales, not in chords. Please google for any jazz, pop, blues or rock composition, here called XXXX, and what does Google mention? “XXXX, lyrics, chords” So all the post-1900 compositions, were composed around chords, while all the classical compositions were composed with a key in mind. Never ever, a classical composer has made a composition around well-sounding chords, they were always within the straight jacket of the key in which they were composing, apart from a modulation here and there in order to go to the next straight jacket of the next key used in a good part of the rest of the composition.
@@pabzum Thank you for your detailed reaction, but I still disagree. Continuo basso is not a chord notation as we know it today, but more a guide for the player, how to improvise a chord. Please see also Wikipedia under “Basso Continuo” where is mentioned “The figured bass notation, described below, is a guide, but performers are also expected to use their musical judgment and the other instruments or voices (notably the lead melody and any accidentals that might be present in it) as a guide.” This means that the composer didn’t know a great deal about chords, but expected the performer to do his job, by adding chords to the composer’s composition.
But apart from that: mentioning a note, for instance C and adding some numbers may indeed form a chord. I agree on that. But three notes written down in a partition may also form a chord. And many classical composers composed in counterpart and often had three simultaneous notes, which we consider today as a chord, and give it its proper name. But the question remains, was this also recognised by the composer himself as a chord or was it just a random moment where three musical lines (melodies) met one another in a nice way? It is a fact that these nice moments of three musical lines meeting each other have never systematically been investigated in those days. In other words, there was no chord theory. Even if there were several methods to notate three of more notes simultaneously, the most important aspect lacked, the insight that it weren’t not just haphazardly three notes that went well together, but that for instance the composition went well because of a minor or a seventh chord.
And I must say, basso continuo is the clumsiest way to notate what should be a chord as it supposes the performer to do for a good part the composer’s job. A better way is to just write down the three desired notes one below the other in the partition. Then the composer does a better job. But also then, as already stated, was the composer aware that he/she was writing down a diminished, minor or for instance a seventh chord? As far as my knowledge reaches, no classical composer was aware of that and there exists no evidence that chord theory existed before about the year 1900.
And the last aspect that I will mention is that classical composition are always composed in a key, like for instance Dflat. This indicates that all the composers of former centuries were thinking in keys and their scales, not in chords. Please google for any jazz, pop, blues or rock composition, here called XXXX, and what does Google mention? “XXXX, lyrics, chords” So all the post-1900 compositions, were composed around chords, while all the classical compositions were composed with a key in mind. Never ever, a classical composer has made a composition around well-sounding chords, they were always within the straight jacket of the key in which they were composing, apart from a modulation here and there in order to go to the next straight jacket of the next key used in a good part of the rest of the composition.