/lit/ - Literature

SHIT WRONG BOARF

>>15009706
the D# half diminished isnt inexplicable

Every piece Chopin ever wrote was a mess. Every piece. If you're serious, play Mozart—or write 'em! When Chopin started, nobody cared about your music. No one thought it was important. Now everyone does."

Even though music has now given us so many wonderful composers, who in turn made us, its sustenance remains even more important than ever. Nevertheless, if the world of musicians is any indication, the challenge we still have in finding our own place in it is considerable. We may be the brightest stars in the sky, but we still compete for the sky. (Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to focus on your own individual star.) We risk nothing but our insecurities.

Stop listening or playing music. It would deceive your mind and make you pretend that you understand something or achieve some grand realization.

>>15009734
The best I could analyze it was as a deceptive cadence in the key of F# (tonicized by the C# major in measure seven) pivoting back into the home key. From measure 7 in C#: V/iv vi°/iv (OR ii°) V65 i. Sounds like shit regardless, though, compared to F#.

>>15009797
>based and theorypilled
Why is /lit/ better at analyzing music than /mu/?

music is sensuous art

>>15009797
Or just I ii° V65 i. Although the C# major in measure 7 definitely sounds dominant to me.

Music theory is nonsense.

>>15011036
Literally retarded. Care to elaborate on how your wrong opinion isn’t wrong?

>>15011928
If you dare hear me out, sure. Music doesn't actually even have theory because music deals with audible sounds that effect nothing but the ears and, I'll give you this, certain emotions.
For example, when I listen to Sufjan Stevens I am impressed and I am moved. I'm not impressed by his musical ability - that's like riding a complicated bicycle (anyone can do it eventually), no I'm impressed by the way he makes me feel.
He makes me feel both good and bad at the same time, which I both like and don't like. It's a unique experience that only Sufjan can provide for me.
However, don't tell me there is theory behind that connection. It's a spiritual thing between us and between any musician and his or her appreciators.

QED unlike literary theory there is no theory behind music because it's mostly just spiritual connections and other forms of magic.

>>15012002
>QED
>music is magic
Lmao based

>>15012002
You're an absolute midwit, congratulations.

>>15012002
What? So in your opinion the idea of notes and how they correspond to wavelength is not actually real?
Pleas tell me you are joking.

>>15012002
>that’s like riding a complicated bicycle
What did he mean by this?

>>15012139
Well, yes and no. It's a very nuanced subject as it sounds like you're aware. Insofar as the mathematical concepts go - arithmetic if you will - there is some formulation there but absolutely zero theory. There is no theory in the math, it's just binary, black-and-white math.
This is why all the best classical musicians are Asian.

But as for the emotional aspects I noted earlier - yes there could be some theory there, but this subject is so far undiscovered and isn't really talked about much outside of what I hear from pretty much only myself on the subject.

>>15012185
I don't think the concept of music theory you have in your head aligns with reality in any way.
Music theory is the base foundation of how notes act in relation to each other.
Like how to construct a chord or what a key is.
Sufjan Stevens would constantly use musical theory to make is songs like every other musician on this planet too. Even the Amazonas indigo mother that lulls her baby to sleep puts notes in relation to each other by instinct and is thus using music theory.
I'm really failing to understand what point you are trying to make.

>>15011928

Previously:

>>>/lit/thread/S13346407#p13348233

>>mfw there are people who unironically believe they like "perfect fifths" because of the 2:3 ratio even though "tonal" music regularly has "tone clusters" from voices and percussion which should make it cacophonous according to their moronic hypothesis as should the fact that they hear all kinds of ratios in daily life from random non-musical sources and think nothing of them one way or another and instead ignore the fact that beauty absolutely belongs to the self and explodes into particular phenomena like musical instruments and musical pieces the measurements thereof being irrelevant

>>15012185
>This is why all the best classical musicians are Asian.
lmao

>>15012259
>>15012185
Music theory is primarily concerned with frequencies(and how they interact) and rhythm. It only tangentially deals with things like timbre or any "tone cluster". Music theory tells us that frequencies that are multiples of the base frequency sound harmonic but it has moved far past saying that harmony sounds beautiful and is mainly a tool for composers not a tool for listeners.

>>15012336

Voices and percussion implicitly produce tone clusters, many pitches adjacent to the intended pitch, which should make them "dissonant" according to music theory. Also, composers seldom if ever used it. No primary sources show any proof of Numerology as integral to their composing, the whole idea being very recent, 19th century German fabrication.

>>15012259
Ok so the only theory I have working knowledge of is western classical, but this analysis is extremely confused. Music theory has very little to do with why we like music and is rather completely focused on differentiating and explicating the perceptible elements of a given style of music, in order to give analysts a useful vocabulary to talk about how individual works function. It’s exactly analogous to the vocabulary of a literary theory, which describes literary ‘elements’ or devices like themes, metaphors, etc., all so that literature can be discussed and understood more effectively.

There is literally no music theory that says "perfect fifths sound good because of the 2:3 ratio." Theory only goes as far as saying "perfect fifths ARE a 2:3 ratio" (in Pythagorean tuning anyway) and then uses this well-defined term when it is relevant.
Refer to the brief analyses earlier in the post.
>>15009797
>>15009876
To continue talking about the fifth, both of these analyses are completely dependent on the concept of a perfect fifth to have any meaning at all, but are completely free of any a priori aesthetic judgements about the perfect fifth

>>15012407
"adjacent" needs some clarifying. Something like 440hz and 441hz will not sound dissonant. They'll just sound like the same note. But 440hz and 466hz will sound dissonant.

Volume is another factor. A voice's timbre usually has a dominant frequency that will be significantly louder than any other produced. The lower sympathetic frequencies will also likely be louder than whatever other noise is being produced. So in order for a voice to sound dissonant there has to be an actual dissonant frequency sounding loudly enough to hear over the implicit harmonics, of which I imagine only the harshest of voices would have.

Percussion is often dissonant, cymbals being a good example. But there are some, like some steel drums, that aren't.

But the most important thing to note is that music theory does not, or at least does no longer, say that dissonance is bad.


>Also, composers seldom if ever used it. No primary sources show any proof of Numerology as integral to their composing, the whole idea being very recent, 19th century German fabrication.
This is an actual retarded statement. Any piece of music that uses western scales, being 99% of western music, is using music theory as a composing too. And of that you've probably listened to nothing but 12TET music your entire life which is an undeniably mathematical solution to tuning instruments.

>>15012723

Provide a single piece of evidence from the abundance of manuscripts, personal notes, letters, secondary sources, etc. of any composer being concerned with Numerology. My point being that the popularity of "Western scales" has no Epistemological bearing on the idea that they are what generates, as it were, any one piece's character and any one man's affinity for music. That they could simply be a matter of habit, indeed, so inconsequential that barely anyone thinks of changing them, since they have no relevance one way or another.

The rest of the reply is really weak. "Oh which I imagine"? Compelling...

>>15012723

Provide a single piece of evidence from the abundance of manuscripts, personal notes, letters, secondary sources, etc. of any composer being concerned with Numerology. My point being that the popularity of "Western scales" has no Epistemological bearing on the idea that they are what generates, as it were, any one piece's character and any one man's affinity for music. That they could simply be a matter of habit, indeed, so inconsequential that barely anyone thinks of changing them, since they have no relevance one way or another.

The rest of the reply is really weak. "Of which I imagine"? Compelling...

>>15012872
>Provide a single piece of evidence from the abundance of manuscripts, personal notes, letters, secondary sources, etc. of any composer being concerned with Numerology. My point being that the popularity of "Western scales" has no Epistemological bearing on the idea that they are what generates, as it were, any one piece's character and any one man's affinity for music. That they could simply be a matter of habit, indeed, so inconsequential that barely anyone thinks of changing them, since they have no relevance one way or another.
Your choice of the word "numerology" is bizarre. Music theory doesn't try to distinguish what is an innate human preference for certain sounds encoded in our DNA and what are just culturally reified preferences. The western scales are just an example to satisfy what you asked for. Sure, the standard minor scale could just be an arbitrary cultural preference, but it still exists as a tool for composers writing to satisfy that preference within themselves and/or their audience.

>The rest of the reply is really weak. "Of which I imagine"? Compelling...
Ok, I'm sure you'll provide an example of a voice that does not sound dissonant and an analysis of the frequencies present in it's timbre to prove your statement that it is dissonant according to music theory. Otherwise your entire argument is nothing but what you imagine.

>>15013110
>but it still exists as a tool for composers writing to satisfy that preference within themselves and/or their audience.

It seems like you agree with me.

>>15013236
>It seems like you agree with me.
I agree that music theory is not an objective basis for what music is good or bad. I disagree that it is trying to be. I disagree that composers don't use music theory as a tool. I disagree that music theory suggests that voices are inherently dissonant.

>>15012510
You're right. Nowhere credible will you read that a perfect fifth (2:3) "sounds good" - a meaningless statement. You should note that it is commonly perceived as a relatively consonant interval.

In this theoretical approach to describing consonance/dissonance, an interval is more consonant the "simpler" it is - 2 pitches expressed as an integer ratio/fraction. 1:1 is more consonant than 1:2 is more consonant than 2:3 etc.

The above works fairly well in describing events in 12TET, Pythagorean and some other systems. However it is quite a closed theoretical view that falls apart when considering minor tuning errors, more discrete tuning systems etc.

As ever when dealing with music theory, one should ask "What am I trying to achieve?". At the end of the day theory can be used to understand aspects of music, inform construction, and better relate ideas to one another. But it is just a tool and like words is woefully inadequate in its capacity to relate experience of creation, perception, experience etc.

>>15009757
You deserve to be skinned alive and baked over an open flame. Fucking souless brat.

>>15013970
Chopin is terrible and autistic. His music sucks. It's unoriginal. It's awful and stupid. You should never listen to Chopin and you definitely shouldn't sing along to his pieces. Chopin was kind of a weird guy in the way that Americans are kind of a weird bunch of people. Americans love to treat Chopin as if he were this musical god. They think that Chopin was this really inventive genius. But in reality, he was a very mediocre person and he was also a really shitty fellow. He was one of the top two or three like the worst people in Europe to have ever lived. He was an alcoholic, he was bad at everything, he was mentally ill and gay.

>>15009783
What's this supposed to mean ?

>>15012185
>This is why all the best classical musicians are Asian.
lol

>>15014027
>singing along to Chopin
lmao, who would do that?

>>15014027
My nigga still dropped some bangers though. Sure he didn't add much to the development of large scale formal structures, but what he got down on the page (sometimes) in relatively simple structures is nothing short of exquisite - melodically, harmonically, dynamically etc.

Also "unoriginal" barely registers as valid criticism - especially if not explained/referenced - you may as well have just said that you personally don't dig the man's music for all the good it contributed to the discussion.

I'm not particularly attached to him as a figure or as a musician, but he has penned more than a few pieces that are significant contributions to the repertoire - particularly in the genre of solo piano works. If you want to whine about him that's fine, but the way you have done it here paints you as a musically and aesthetically illiterate bore.

Wow, guess this is what happens when you accidentally post a music thread in /lit/.

Ok brainlets, answer the OP's question: F# or D# in measure 8? If you don't understand, then stfu and gtfo.

>>15012002
>>15012185
music theory is literally just a way to describe what you hear you absolute mong

having 'really complex theory' behind your piece doesn't make it inherently more listenable but all music has some way that it can be notated in theory. It's about describing the relationship between the sounds that you hear. That's it.

Even if an artist doesn't invoke chord substitutions or whatever in their writing process and just goes off of feel, it still is theoretically based.

>>15014541
D# sounds subdued and melancholy

F# sounds bright and expressive

depends on what the player's interpretation of how it makes them feel and how it should sound goes. Personally I prefer D#

>>15014027
literally what in his life makes you dislike him. He was physically ill to be sure, but why mentally. you are a retard

>>15015065
Eb is clearly the superior note

>>15014027
>Chopin is terrible and autistic. His music sucks. It's unoriginal. It's awful and stupid. You should never listen to Chopin and you definitely shouldn't sing along to his pieces. Chopin was kind of a weird guy in the way that Americans are kind of a weird bunch of people. Americans love to treat Chopin as if he were this musical god. They think that Chopin was this really inventive genius. But in reality, he was a very mediocre person and he was also a really shitty fellow. He was one of the top two or three like the worst people in Europe to have ever lived. He was an alcoholic, he was bad at everything, he was mentally ill and gay.

not an argument

>>15015606
>Haha I know that D# and Eb are enharmonically equivalent aren’t I clever and knowledgeable
Instagram tier joke. A written Eb would be instructive of the correct key to press but would otherwise not accurately describe what was occurring in the music. And in any case the superior note is F#.

>>15014027
Unbelievably based
>>15014452
>>15015575
>>15015608
Cringe

>>15014027
literally a pasta

>>15015647
cringe

>>15009706
F# hints at a iv chord, but since it omits the C# it can be interpreted as a ii first inversion a well. Now the D# in the bass clearly preserves the figure of the left hand motif/arpeggio that is consistently similar throughout, while the F# in the bass would break that pattern, hence the D#.

>>15012185
>This is why all the best classical musicians are Asian.
And who wrote said classical music, you fucking mongrel?

/lit/ doesn't deal with such a nebulous art form as music.
It is degenerate to the soul to imbibe something so incomprehensible[1] especially something as shitty as chopin.


>[1] Plato - Politeia

I can't imagine OP is still here (although am very pleased to see other pianists in the area!) but my understanding is that Chopin is notorious for having varying editions due to a propensity to correct his autograph copies and release many editions during his own lifetime. I remember a master class growing up in which the teacher told another student he needed to buy a different edition. At the end of the day an academic/editor is making a choice, and hopefully you have access to their methodology to see if their reasoning is sound to you. Chopin isn't Bach or Beethoven, you can play different notes to little appreciable effect. See the discussion on the Op. 48 nocturne here, replete with some similar examples as yours:

https://bestsheetmusiceditions.com/best-editions-chopin-piano/#Chopin_Nocturnes

Playing piano is a great use of time nowadays for sure. Practice on, classical bro!

PS. I'd prefer the D#. But I am an amateur, fitting!

>>15015913
>F# hints at a iv chord
Perhaps I was unclear, but in the Henle Urtext the D# bass alone is replaced with an F# bass a minor third higher. The rest of the notes remain the same. The resulting chord does not ‘hint’ at a iv chord. It is a iv chord in root position, with all chord tones represented, the root doubled, and the m3 doubled by the melody. And neither version omits a C#.

As best I can analyze it, the D# gives iiø7 (half diminished 7), while the F# gives iv, tonicized by the preceding C# major in measure seven.

Perhaps you could elaborate what you mean by "breaking the pattern" but I think both choices preserve the LH motif equally-well. My issue with the D# is rather that the non-diatonic C# major in preceding measure seven clearly has a dominant function (emphasized by the b7 B naturals in the melody), and that moving to D#ø7 is a strikingly unpleasant resolution (V7/iv —> iiø7 == viø7/iv), which can be analyzed as a deceptive cadence coming from the subdominant but resolving in the home key, compared to the far more plausible (V7/iv —> iv) given by the F#.

>>15014452
Informative, courteous, and overpowered.

>>15009706
obviously a printing error. learn2harmony

>>15016060
he wrote at the piano and didn't like to write things down so there are varying editions. it's also why his orchestral works suck hard.

>>15016076
>And neither version omits a C#.
It appears so. My mistake.
>Perhaps you could elaborate what you mean by "breaking the pattern"
Notice that he opts for texture with well-spaced intervals between notes in the arpeggios, F# in the bass would break that pattern as it would give the interval of a third.
>strikingly unpleasant resolution
The C#major7 would be a relative V to the iv, which, with D#, it becomes a false cadence (?). Perhaps harmonically he felt that V7/iv -> iv -> V -> i would be too strong of a cadence for that early point in the music, but honestly I think he was thinking motivically rather than harmonically, visually you can see that D# just preserves the left-hand pattern.

>>15016142
>well-spaced intervals
The first three notes that is

>>15016060
D# masterrace here

F#? D#? you mean fá# and ré#

>this entire thread
/mulit/

>>15016060
I am still here lol good post and that looks quite interesting so ty anon

>>15016164
No I mean F# and D# because in america we have this amazing invention called movable-do where do simply represents the tonic, re the supertonic, etc. without reference to a specific key. It would be very confusing if our note names were also do, re, etc, because then we would have to say things like "the re of re-minor" to indicate E natural/mi. America is an extremely stupid country and we do almost everything backwards, but the one thing we actually get right is musical vocabulary, and, as we have little else to be proud of, I am desperately proud of that.

>>15014027
lol