Thank you for this video series, it’s been incredibly helpful in my musical learning journey! I love how you present the material, with score playbacks, multiple examples, thoughtful highlights and animations, and traditional slide notes. It’s academic and clear, yet also approachable and surprisingly enjoyable. I feel like it’s just the right pace, thankfully not rushed, but also not so slow that it becomes redundant. I look forward to watching the rest of the series, and undoubtedly revisiting it several times as reference material! Every video feels like a little bit of a revelation to things that I’ve been hearing yet not understanding for my whole life. I listen differently now!
Thanks so much, Daydreamer! I try very hard to make these videos the best they can be, something that curious people can really dig into. Kind comments like this make it all worth it!
The algorithm brought me here and it was just after I flushed my computer's settings so the browser cookies were gone and autoplay was active on UA-cam. I was at the other end of the room in a sofa and all this great information just showered over me for two hours at least haha ... I better subscribe before it gets lost. I need to review all the videos! :D
Your students are lucky to have you, Sir. Thank you for these wonderful discussions. They are really helpful. I had a lot of 'that's why' statements lately after watching your vids. 😁
I've noticed that my lack of ear training is hindering my understanding, even though this is interesting. It's not surprising since I was born with two left ears.
Dear @Seth, @12:10 of the video, we replace the parallel 8s and 5s with a contrary motion on the right hand. But these two chords do not sound, and sense the same that we used equivalent! Also, I couldn't hear any dissonance while the parallel chord was being played. Would you please explain it?
I would love it if I found some basic exercises to put these things in to practice. Typically, I can pretty much play by ear in any major key but, when I come to switch over to minor I find my mind goes blank and I end up doing that exhaustive process you mentioned earlier. Even if you do not have time to put these together, would you be able to point me in the right direction as to where I could find such exercises? (worth an ask) Thanks again Seth ;)
Another amazing supplement to my textbook, which only dedicates a short paragraph explaining chorale vs keyboard style, and it was a vague paragraph at best. This video explains so much more the pros and cons of each style, and when to use which. I also really appreciate the Hand Shape glossary toward the end. Makes a lot more sense. Do you have a recommended way of practicing these so I can recognize them right away? I was thinking of printing out some flash cards of the 13 options but maybe it would be better to practice sight reading them at a keyboard, so I can make that immediate sight-to-hand connection. Thoughts?
I have another question, Mr. Seth, @19:30 of this video, in order to combat parallels, we change the first note of the right hand (so-called Tenor note) and make it ups and down not to face parallels. In this regard, we introduce the 2nd version while the chord style is open, and this tenor note (the first note of RH) is just omitted in comparing the 1st version. So we called it a three-note that is replaced with a four-note. But it seems they are now completely parallel in the three-note version. RH: F, B, then G, C, and then A, D, aren't they parallel yet?
What are the rules of stem direction in keyboard style? I can see the soprano points up but what happens if one upper part is doubled like soprano and alto or alto and tenor? do we just see 3 voices in this case?
Hi Arman! This is 100% correct. Though note that this often isn't a byproduct of keyboard style per se, but rather of the fact that keyboard style is often used to harmonize *melodies* that have large leaps (and thus aren't really appropriate for chorale-style settings). Given how keyboard style works, a large leap in the top voice impels the inner voices to "tag along."
Hi Seth, at the end of the video at 18:00 minutes in, you show us a passage of multiple first inversion (6) chords playing in succession, but you then go to explain that you changed some notes to avoid parallel octaves/ fifths. So why are they still notated as first inversion (6) chords if they've been inverted? Thanks
Hi Romyn. I didn't invert the chords; the bass notes didn't change. They're first-inversion triads in both versions of the passage. The point is that writing that progression in four voices-rather than three-requires one voice to leap around a bit to avoid bad parallels. (In this case it's the tenor. It can't just rise by step from D, because it would make parallel 8s with the bass.)
Good question! This is a somewhat unorthodox use of what's called the "sprung" or "frustrated" leading tone, which leaps from ^7 down to ^5 in an inner voice. Normally, you'd do that when the voice above steps down to cover the note the LT *ought to* have resolved too. It's less common when that note of resolution is missing, as it is here. (To be honest, I don't entirely recall why I used it here. The alto could certainly have gone up to A!)
9:30, why is it impossible to play the choral realisation? It is possible! I myself am not very fluent with the piano, but I did it! I follow your series, but this part is difficult to understand. why is at all important to have 2 styles when in one I have to omit these beautiful lines?
Hi Shombit. I apologize if it was unclear. What I meant was that it would be impossible to play Bach's chorale as written with the voices distributed as in keyboard style-i.e., one in the left and three in the right. It would require the right hand to play C4, C5, and Eb5 at the same time. That isn't technically "impossible," but it would be difficult and unidiomatic-particularly at a brisk tempo.
Thanks, Shombit! Also: I saw another comment from you in my inbox this morning, but when I went to Video 16, I couldn't see it. Maybe try sending again if you like?
@@SethMonahan I deleted It, I had some confusions, but later it was clear, so it was no more needed. thank you. please continue making more videos. they are really good. one request about video 16: Would you mind also adding the rest of the chord sounds in your chart in the website. I was doing some try and error practise and analysis, and found that perhaps there might also some chords beside the big 18 that might find some use. All I suggest is that Keeping the 18 highlighted just add the sounds in the rest of the boxes, it would be a really great help for comparing with the others, One example you already talked about is the similarity between ii6(5) and IV, I believe there can be such similarities between V43 and vii06, perhaps such similarities can also be found between chords that are not mentioned here. The chart was a great help btw.
Great question, Franco. I'm sure there are historians who can answer this question better than I can. But I think four voices-as opposed to three, or five, or two-emerged as the pedagogical standard because of the type of harmony that this style uses. If one wishes to compose with triads and seventh chords, then four voices would be the minimum number required to consistently have complete seventh chords. It may also have something to do with the emergence of a system in which human voices were sorted into four types based on their range (S, A, T, B). All this being said, it's important to know that real music does NOT-at all-use or require four distinct voices. Skilled composers are able to give the impression of full harmonic richness with only two or even one melodic voice. I seem to recall there being some debate in the 18th century about the challenge of writing with fewer than four voices. In earlier times, when composition was mainly about counterpoint, difficulty increased with the number of voices. (Writing with four would be harder than three, five harder than four, etc.) But in an era where concerns shifted to harmony, it was then regarded as *easier* to write with multiple voices-i.e., it's easy to articulate harmony with four independent voices, but quite difficult with only two.
I dont believe so. These intervals combine the different voices, making it hard to differentiate. I think the only time that parallel octaves are allowed is when its a doubling of one voice. Idk though
Hi Ruben! This is a common question, and a good one. (FWIW, I agree that simply saying "it's in the style" can feel arbitrary and unhelpful.) The answer takes us way back into the history of Western notated music-before the concept of the "chord" even really existed, and when composition pedagogy was largely concerned with the question of how to combine individual melodies in counterpoint. The original premise, back in the early Renaissance, was that parallel perfect fifths and octaves caused a perceptual problem: they made it hard to hear the component lines as "individual voices." Those intervals are *so* consonant, the logic goes, that if one moves in parallel P5s or P8s, the upper voice kind of gets "absorbed" into the sound of the lower one, such that we no longer hear two independent lines. What's curious is that this guideline stuck around well *after* the concept of the "chord" emerged. Even into the 19th century, Western composers still thought about harmony as the product (at least in part) of independently-moving voices. And there was a feedback loop that directly impacted the development of harmonic syntax. By this, I mean that many of the most common progressions in the 18th/19th-century style were, not coincidentally, the ones tended to avoid parallel P5s. Take, for instance, a high-risk progression like IV going to V. That's something we do hear regularly. But the functionally-equivalent progression of ii6-V is *so much* more common. And the reason, I suspect, is that it does the same thing harmonically (predominant-dominant) but has a much lower risk of illegal parallels. At any rate, it would only be in the 1880s or so that composers started to throw this rule overboard. Which makes sense because if your whole culture has avoided parallel perfect fifths for hundreds of years, it ends up being a very novel-and potentially very beautiful-sound.
@@SethMonahan Thank you for the very good and explanatory answer, it makes the reason very clear now. Your videos are amazing, I watched a bunch of them in sequence because they are so good, but I intend to watch all many times to really learn it, you are very charismatic and the way you present topics doesn't make it boring! Thank you again for the answer and for the amazing material Seth.
Thank you for this video series, it’s been incredibly helpful in my musical learning journey! I love how you present the material, with score playbacks, multiple examples, thoughtful highlights and animations, and traditional slide notes. It’s academic and clear, yet also approachable and surprisingly enjoyable. I feel like it’s just the right pace, thankfully not rushed, but also not so slow that it becomes redundant. I look forward to watching the rest of the series, and undoubtedly revisiting it several times as reference material! Every video feels like a little bit of a revelation to things that I’ve been hearing yet not understanding for my whole life. I listen differently now!
Thanks so much, Daydreamer! I try very hard to make these videos the best they can be, something that curious people can really dig into. Kind comments like this make it all worth it!
The algorithm brought me here and it was just after I flushed my computer's settings so the browser cookies were gone and autoplay was active on UA-cam. I was at the other end of the room in a sofa and all this great information just showered over me for two hours at least haha ... I better subscribe before it gets lost. I need to review all the videos! :D
Every video of yours is a hidden gem on UA-cam, thank you sir!
Im really surprise that those blessings lessons not getting views and thank you so much for those sir! I really appreciate it :)
Your students are lucky to have you, Sir. Thank you for these wonderful discussions. They are really helpful. I had a lot of 'that's why' statements lately after watching your vids. 😁
I've noticed that my lack of ear training is hindering my understanding, even though this is interesting. It's not surprising since I was born with two left ears.
Dear @Seth,
@12:10 of the video, we replace the parallel 8s and 5s with a contrary motion on the right hand. But these two chords do not sound, and sense the same that we used equivalent!
Also, I couldn't hear any dissonance while the parallel chord was being played.
Would you please explain it?
I would love it if I found some basic exercises to put these things in to practice. Typically, I can pretty much play by ear in any major key but, when I come to switch over to minor I find my mind goes blank and I end up doing that exhaustive process you mentioned earlier. Even if you do not have time to put these together, would you be able to point me in the right direction as to where I could find such exercises? (worth an ask) Thanks again Seth ;)
Another amazing supplement to my textbook, which only dedicates a short paragraph explaining chorale vs keyboard style, and it was a vague paragraph at best. This video explains so much more the pros and cons of each style, and when to use which. I also really appreciate the Hand Shape glossary toward the end. Makes a lot more sense. Do you have a recommended way of practicing these so I can recognize them right away? I was thinking of printing out some flash cards of the 13 options but maybe it would be better to practice sight reading them at a keyboard, so I can make that immediate sight-to-hand connection. Thoughts?
Hello! Thank you very much for this course!
Any chance you could tell me where to find the exact 13 common shapes used by the right hand?
You’re already there, Paul; it’s in this video.
Yeah, I'm missing only one of them :s
Is it using a fifth on top of a fourth in the open shapes?
Ha-I never noticed that I only showed twelve of them on screen! The missing one is the fifth-on-top open shape, just as you suspected.
@@SethMonahan Thanks!
Thank you music theory god 🙏🙏🙌🙌😇
Great! Thanx! ❤ 😊
I have another question, Mr. Seth,
@19:30 of this video, in order to combat parallels, we change the first note of the right hand (so-called Tenor note) and make it ups and down not to face parallels. In this regard, we introduce the 2nd version while the chord style is open, and this tenor note (the first note of RH) is just omitted in comparing the 1st version. So we called it a three-note that is replaced with a four-note.
But it seems they are now completely parallel in the three-note version. RH: F, B, then G, C, and then A, D, aren't they parallel yet?
What are the rules of stem direction in keyboard style? I can see the soprano points up but what happens if one upper part is doubled like soprano and alto or alto and tenor? do we just see 3 voices in this case?
The doubled note will have two stems.
Thank you Seth. With keyboard style isnt it also true that you will have bigger leaps in the voices?
Hi Arman! This is 100% correct. Though note that this often isn't a byproduct of keyboard style per se, but rather of the fact that keyboard style is often used to harmonize *melodies* that have large leaps (and thus aren't really appropriate for chorale-style settings). Given how keyboard style works, a large leap in the top voice impels the inner voices to "tag along."
Hi Seth, at the end of the video at 18:00 minutes in, you show us a passage of multiple first inversion (6) chords playing in succession, but you then go to explain that you changed some notes to avoid parallel octaves/ fifths. So why are they still notated as first inversion (6) chords if they've been inverted?
Thanks
Hi Romyn. I didn't invert the chords; the bass notes didn't change. They're first-inversion triads in both versions of the passage. The point is that writing that progression in four voices-rather than three-requires one voice to leap around a bit to avoid bad parallels. (In this case it's the tenor. It can't just rise by step from D, because it would make parallel 8s with the bass.)
@@SethMonahanI see. Thanks for the reply :)
Hi! I have a question @13:37 The way you resolve the V7 to I... The leading tone doesn't go to the tonic Why?
Good question! This is a somewhat unorthodox use of what's called the "sprung" or "frustrated" leading tone, which leaps from ^7 down to ^5 in an inner voice. Normally, you'd do that when the voice above steps down to cover the note the LT *ought to* have resolved too. It's less common when that note of resolution is missing, as it is here. (To be honest, I don't entirely recall why I used it here. The alto could certainly have gone up to A!)
9:30, why is it impossible to play the choral realisation? It is possible! I myself am not very fluent with the piano, but I did it! I follow your series, but this part is difficult to understand. why is at all important to have 2 styles when in one I have to omit these beautiful lines?
Hi Shombit. I apologize if it was unclear. What I meant was that it would be impossible to play Bach's chorale as written with the voices distributed as in keyboard style-i.e., one in the left and three in the right. It would require the right hand to play C4, C5, and Eb5 at the same time. That isn't technically "impossible," but it would be difficult and unidiomatic-particularly at a brisk tempo.
@@SethMonahan thank you. Btw, this series really helps us. I wish we had it when we were kids.
Thanks, Shombit! Also: I saw another comment from you in my inbox this morning, but when I went to Video 16, I couldn't see it. Maybe try sending again if you like?
@@SethMonahan I deleted It, I had some confusions, but later it was clear, so it was no more needed. thank you.
please continue making more videos. they are really good.
one request about video 16: Would you mind also adding the rest of the chord sounds in your chart in the website.
I was doing some try and error practise and analysis, and found that perhaps there might also some chords beside the big 18 that might find some use. All I suggest is that Keeping the 18 highlighted just add the sounds in the rest of the boxes, it would be a really great help for comparing with the others, One example you already talked about is the similarity between ii6(5) and IV, I believe there can be such similarities between V43 and vii06, perhaps such similarities can also be found between chords that are not mentioned here. The chart was a great help btw.
Prof. Can you explain why we have four voice harmony. We are Obliged to harmonize in four voices not in three why?
Great question, Franco. I'm sure there are historians who can answer this question better than I can. But I think four voices-as opposed to three, or five, or two-emerged as the pedagogical standard because of the type of harmony that this style uses. If one wishes to compose with triads and seventh chords, then four voices would be the minimum number required to consistently have complete seventh chords. It may also have something to do with the emergence of a system in which human voices were sorted into four types based on their range (S, A, T, B).
All this being said, it's important to know that real music does NOT-at all-use or require four distinct voices. Skilled composers are able to give the impression of full harmonic richness with only two or even one melodic voice. I seem to recall there being some debate in the 18th century about the challenge of writing with fewer than four voices. In earlier times, when composition was mainly about counterpoint, difficulty increased with the number of voices. (Writing with four would be harder than three, five harder than four, etc.) But in an era where concerns shifted to harmony, it was then regarded as *easier* to write with multiple voices-i.e., it's easy to articulate harmony with four independent voices, but quite difficult with only two.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Can we have problems such as contrary fiths and 8ve in keyboard style voice leading
I dont believe so. These intervals combine the different voices,
making it hard to differentiate. I think the only time that parallel
octaves are allowed is when its a doubling of one voice. Idk though
no you can't
No. Never.
You could touch more in why parallel 5ths and octs are "forbidden". I kinda understand that it's in the style, but this rules always seens arbitrary.
Hi Ruben! This is a common question, and a good one. (FWIW, I agree that simply saying "it's in the style" can feel arbitrary and unhelpful.) The answer takes us way back into the history of Western notated music-before the concept of the "chord" even really existed, and when composition pedagogy was largely concerned with the question of how to combine individual melodies in counterpoint. The original premise, back in the early Renaissance, was that parallel perfect fifths and octaves caused a perceptual problem: they made it hard to hear the component lines as "individual voices." Those intervals are *so* consonant, the logic goes, that if one moves in parallel P5s or P8s, the upper voice kind of gets "absorbed" into the sound of the lower one, such that we no longer hear two independent lines.
What's curious is that this guideline stuck around well *after* the concept of the "chord" emerged. Even into the 19th century, Western composers still thought about harmony as the product (at least in part) of independently-moving voices. And there was a feedback loop that directly impacted the development of harmonic syntax. By this, I mean that many of the most common progressions in the 18th/19th-century style were, not coincidentally, the ones tended to avoid parallel P5s. Take, for instance, a high-risk progression like IV going to V. That's something we do hear regularly. But the functionally-equivalent progression of ii6-V is *so much* more common. And the reason, I suspect, is that it does the same thing harmonically (predominant-dominant) but has a much lower risk of illegal parallels.
At any rate, it would only be in the 1880s or so that composers started to throw this rule overboard. Which makes sense because if your whole culture has avoided parallel perfect fifths for hundreds of years, it ends up being a very novel-and potentially very beautiful-sound.
@@SethMonahan Thank you for the very good and explanatory answer, it makes the reason very clear now.
Your videos are amazing, I watched a bunch of them in sequence because they are so good, but I intend to watch all many times to really learn it, you are very charismatic and the way you present topics doesn't make it boring! Thank you again for the answer and for the amazing material Seth.
Thank you SO much for the kind words, Ruben. I'm so glad you like my stuff!
You could remove the fifth and still have a shell of a 7th chord.
Shell implies incomplete.