Help with identifying chords in revolutionary Etude

[theholygideons]

Can someone please untie what on earth is happening with the harmony here for me please  . Did the music just modulate several times, or is he using a whole bunch of chromatic notes. You can tell my music theory sucks...balls

[ted]

I'll try a rough guess but I don't know any theory.

Cdim,G,Eb7,F,Fm,C,Cm - with beautiful voicing, melodic phrasing, and a broken chromatic fill-in. Someone else will give you the right answer soon.

[swagmaster420x]

Isn't this sh it really weird because it's doing quartal sh it? But I'm pretty ignorant in terms of music theory, so bleh. How are you supposed to identify the root note of a chord that Is split between notes in the left and right hand? Is it always the lowest note or something like that

[theholygideons]

I'll try a rough guess but I don't know any theory.

Cdim,G,Eb7,F,Fm,C,Cm - with beautiful voicing, melodic phrasing, and a broken chromatic fill-in. Someone else will give you the right answer soon.

I thought explaining chords without their degree within a certain key isn't very useful, since it's all about the tonal relationships that harmonies have among each other? I'm confused about what happens in the 2nd and 3rd bars of the excerpt.

[lelle]

Can someone please untie what on earth is happening with the harmony here for me please  . Did the music just modulate several times, or is he using a whole bunch of chromatic notes. You can tell my music theory sucks...balls

I love music theory so I had a go at it!

He is doing a chromatic bassline, but everything is well within the confines of C minor.

I've simplified the score in the picture below. The upper system is the chords and the skeleton of the melody and the lower system is the chords in their root position with any missing notes (see analysis below) added. There is a Too Long Didn't Read explanation at the bottom of the post too 

EDIT woops forgot to make the B in the first G major chord in the lower system a B natural



In the first bar, you have a D major 7 with a flat 9 added, with the 7th, C, as the bass note and the D tucked into the arpeggio figure in the bass. The dominant of c minor is G major. The dominant of G major is D major. Therefore I have analysed the first chord as the Dominant of the Dominant, with the 7th, C, as the bass note, and a minor 9th (Eb) added.

Analysing the first chord as the Dominant of the Dominant is very fitting because in the second bar comes the Dominant, G major, with the third, B natural, as the bass note. The bass note 7th (C natural) of the previous chord resolves nicely to the B natural.

The second chord in the second bar is a bit tricky, all you can tell at first glance is that it's a diminished chord (G dim). Diminished chords are often used in place of a dominant, so let's look where it's headed! In the third bar there is an F major chord with the third, A natural, as the bass note. The dominant of F major is C major. But wait, there is no C or E natural in the tricky chord, how can it be a C major chord?! However, there is a G, a B flat, and a D flat, which, if we also had the missing C and E natural, would make up a C major 7 with a flat 9 added, just like the D major in the first bar. We again get the 7th (B flat) as the bass note, again resolving to the third (A natural) of the next chord (F major).  Therefore I analyse this chord as the Dominant of the Subdominant, without the root note (C natural), with the 7th (Bb) as the bass note, and a minor 9th (Db) added .

Analysing it this way you get a nice standard fifths sequence D-G C-F in the first three bars.

The second chord in the third bar is just an f minor with the third, A flat, in the bass. f minor is the Subdominant of c minor, and F major is of course just the same subdominant, but in major. So the third bar is just a bar with the subdominant in it.

In the fourth bar you have a G as the bass note and a C and an E natural in the right hand. However I don't think it is a C major chord if you analyse its harmonic function. Since it has a G as the bass note and resolves in the next bar to a G major chord it should be analysed as the Dominant with a suspended 4th and 6th. In this case the 6th is an e natural instead of the expected e flat, but it resolves chromatically to e flat and then to D. Some chromatic stuff also happens in the left hand but it's just a nice effect that doesn't affect the harmonic skeleton.

In the last bar you are back in the tonic again of course.

TLDR:

C minor:
1st bar Dominant of the Dominant, D major 7 with minor 9th
2nd bar Dominant, G major, followed by the Dominant of the Subdominant, C major (missing the root and the third and also with a 7 and minor 9th)
3rd bar Subdominant in major, followed by subdominant in minor (F major and f minor)
4th bar Dominant with suspended 4th and 6th
5th bar Dominant
6th bar back to tonic

1st-3rd bar sequence D G C F, F being the subdominant
4th-6th bar dominant resolving to tonic

[j_menz]

I love music theory so I had a go at it!

You've also reminded me what I find disconcerting about music theory.  Not that you haven't done a fine and thorough job, but what does it tell me? I mean, does it serve a purpose other than a descriptive one? Is it more than, analogously, "analysing" Van Gogh's Starry Night by describing the hues of paint used?

Not meant at you personally I must stress, but this has always perturbed me about theory - especially as applied to the Romantics - in general. What do I learn from it?

[theholygideons]

You've also reminded me what I find disconcerting about music theory.  Not that you haven't done a fine and thorough job, but what does it tell me? I mean, does it serve a purpose other than a descriptive one? Is it more than, analogously, "analysing" Van Gogh's Starry Night by describing the hues of paint used?

Not meant at you personally I must stress, but this has always perturbed me about theory - especially as applied to the Romantics - in general. What do I learn from it?

I think at my stage, it's not about analysing the harmony of a piece for its overall effective or purpose, but more about the gradual acquisition of skills necessary to analyse a piece. Just from the thorough answer i got from lelle, i'm able to gauge the distance between the level i'm currently at and where i ought to be at.

[j_menz]

I think at my stage, it's not about analysing the harmony of a piece for its overall effective or purpose, but more about the gradual acquisition of skills necessary to analyse a piece. Just from the thorough answer i got from lelle, i'm able to gauge the distance between the level i'm currently at and where i ought to be at.

My question is somewhat more abstract, I think, and I apologise for the thread detour.  Some theory is explanatory - it answers a question; "why did the composer do this", or "is that note really right" (such as in the case of a misprint or "odd" sound).  But the chord descriptions set out by lelle seem to me to not do that. I'm pretty sure I could give any random series of randomly constructed chords and lelle could do a similar job, but what in the end do I know afterwards that I didn't know before, other than a string of names. What do I gain from knowing that?

[ted]

I'm pretty sure I could give any random series of randomly constructed chords and lelle could do a similar job, but what in the end do I know afterwards that I didn't know before, other than a string of names. What do I gain from knowing that?

I entirely agree; if you have a problem with this then I have had a bigger one with it all my life. Mind you, the jazz brigade are far worse. I suggest that perhaps theory is usually to do with harmony simply because discrete combinations are much easier to analyse than phenomena whose base is continuously variable, that is to say rhythm and phrasing. My simplistic chord analysis just represents what would probably (but not necessarily) fly through my mind were I to improvise such passages. I just answered for fun, and I respect lelle's knowledge in much the same way as I respect Tovey's book on Beethoven - without understanding a single word really.

Or put another way, I do understand it at the purely descriptive level, but find it about as much use as precise measurements of petals would be in creating the beauty of a rose.

Your point raises the interesting question of constructive theories, as opposed to descriptive ones, for example David Cope's computer algorithms, but that would redirect the thread a little too far.

[theholygideons]

My question is somewhat more abstract, I think, and I apologise for the thread detour.  Some theory is explanatory - it answers a question; "why did the composer do this", or "is that note really right" (such as in the case of a misprint or "odd" sound).  But the chord descriptions set out by lelle seem to me to not do that. I'm pretty sure I could give any random series of randomly constructed chords and lelle could do a similar job, but what in the end do I know afterwards that I didn't know before, other than a string of names. What do I gain from knowing that?

Usually, after I've researched the context of a piece I'm playing, figuring out the harmony seems to naturally follow on. Wouldn't you have to analyse the harmony first before you would realise what's useful and what's not? In my case, I couldn't immediately tell that the music was progressing in a circle of fifths. Anyhow, I guess it all depends on whether the given piece has considerable musical value attached to it. Knowing the chord progression would be useful in understanding how the composer sets up dissonances, adds variety to his progressions and why the piece sounds like such, useful if you were learning how to compose or improvise imho.

[lelle]

Gah, explaining music theory can become so complicated in writing. Analysing the passage took like 1 minute, writing down my thoughts took... a bit longer (and apparently just became a confusing mess  ). If I could demonstrate it on a piano it would be much easier, and quicker, to clearly demonstrate how I am thinking. If you know what a tonic, subdominant and dominant is you have all you need to understand the analysis (and if you know the circle of fifths it will be even clearer).

Some theory is explanatory - it answers a question; "why did the composer do this", or "is that note really right" (such as in the case of a misprint or "odd" sound).  But the chord descriptions set out by lelle seem to me to not do that. I'm pretty sure I could give any random series of randomly constructed chords and lelle could do a similar job, but what in the end do I know afterwards that I didn't know before, other than a string of names. What do I gain from knowing that?

It tells you that Chopin didn't use a randomly chosen/constructed set of chords, but rather a certain tool from his composers' tool box: a short sequence along the circle of fifths, with a  few chords extended to allow him to do a chromatic bassline, followed by a very common cadenza, also slightly modified. Both things Bach, Mozart, and all the other tonal composers used regularly.

Knowing that can help you to make a more informed and colorful interpretation because it tells you exactly which chords have the most harmonic and thus musical tension, if it's modulating or still in the home key, etc. It tells you more about what effect the composer intented when he crafted the piece.

Instead of seeming like "that passage with weird chords" it becomes an easily memorized common progression. Most chords just become a tonic, subdominant or dominant, or a variant thereof. So the exceptions become easier to remember.

Or put another way, I do understand it at the purely descriptive level, but find it about as much use as precise measurements of petals would be in creating the beauty of a rose.

Seeing how elegantly Chopin uses the simple tools at his disposal allows you to appreciate his genius even more. Just like understanding the use and interplay of colour, how skillfully the painter used his brush etc can give you a new appreciation for a painting.

[j_menz]

Knowing that can help you to make a more informed and colorful interpretation because it tells you exactly which chords have the most harmonic and thus musical tension, if it's modulating or still in the home key, etc. It tells you more about what effect the composer intented when he crafted the piece.

Instead of seeming like "that passage with weird chords" it becomes an easily memorized common progression. Most chords just become a tonic, subdominant or dominant, or a variant thereof. So the exceptions become easier to remember.

Seeing how elegantly Chopin uses the simple tools at his disposal allows you to appreciate his genius even more. Just like understanding the use and interplay of colour, how skillfully the painter used his brush etc can give you a new appreciation for a painting.

Thanks. I'm trying to understand, and appreciate your effort in explaining.  Perhaps the fact that I don't memorise anything may colour my view - that "passage with weird chords" will be in front of me so I don't have to remember it in the same way - but I hear harmonic tension build and release, I don't see the need to give it a name, so to speak.

[Nordlys]

Very good analysis by lelle, which I agree with.

I think every pianist should be able to do a harmonic analysis like this. Ideally you should understand both the emotional content of the music as well as how it is constructed. As lelle shows, these are not random chords but follow classical harmony.

In addition to the reasons listed, a harmonic understanding makes it much easier to learn a piece by heart.