Thread: Random theory questions that don't deserve their own thread

During common practice era, was it outright rare to use a minor v chord in a minor key? Obviously major V would be used for cadential purposes, but otherwise?

Originally Posted by Dim7

During common practice era, was it outright rare to use a minor v chord in a minor key? Obviously major V would be used for cadential purposes, but otherwise?

I can't point you to where it happens but if the third of that triad was approached downward and step-wise from the tonic pitch, and left downward and stepwise as well along the natural minor scale, it would sound pretty common place and you wouldn't bat an eyelid.

Something like: i - v63 - iv63 - V

v63? iv63? What does that 63 mean?

edit: v63 in A minor would be B,G,E with B as the lowest note and iv63 would be F,A,D with F as the lowest?

Originally Posted by Dim7

v63? iv63? What does that 63 mean?

edit: v63 in A minor would be B,G,E with B as the lowest note and iv63 would be F,A,D with F as the lowest?

g would be in the bass for v 6/3 in that key but you're correct with iv6/3. So the progression would have a familiar-sounding bass of a-g-f-e.

Aegrhk of course. The third in the bass yes.

This isn't really a question, but one thing that I wonder about is the ambiguous/ in between 3rd you hear in all kinds of music outside WCM and the music whose harmony evolved from it....it's so potent that you think orchestra composers would've used it ( or invented instruments that use it) in a way that's more mainstream.

That and bent pitches in wind instruments (obviously the trombone has been a popular glissando instrument since whenever), for how beautiful this effect is it seems like it's not used in contexts that it could be.

Originally Posted by Gaspard de la Nuit

This isn't really a question, but one thing that I wonder about is the ambiguous/ in between 3rd you hear in all kinds of music outside WCM and the music whose harmony evolved from it....it's so potent that you think orchestra composers would've used it ( or invented instruments that use it) in a way that's more mainstream.

That and bent pitches in wind instruments (obviously the trombone has been a popular glissando instrument since whenever), for how beautiful this effect is it seems like it's not used in contexts that it could be.

In much of WCM, especially 18th century the preference was for 'pure' sounding minor and major thirds because they sound in tune and resonate nicely. A third that isn't in tune acoustically can sound buzzy and jarring. The may be a preference in some forms of music but western tonality tends to favour thirds that don't buzz. And I'm not talking about jazz here. Obviously in the 20th century things changed a little, but before that it was jsut preference. People just didn't like pitch bending and thought it sounded horrible, it's just cultural taste.

Wow, this thread is exctly what I had in mind when opening this section of TC.

As a music enthusiast totally lacking musical education, questions often spring to my mind while listening (or reading) so the availability of a place like this where some of them can be answered is definitely welcome.

The only problem is that most of my questions will probably VERY BANAL, so the probability to find someone willing to accept the effort to answer decreases However, I will try.


So here's my first question.
Beethoven's Piano sonata op.109, first movement.
When does the exposition of the second theme begin? Where does it end?

I wouldn't know how to recognize "bars", so please refer to actual timestamps referring to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HghTwMHW8hI

Thanks

Beethoven's Piano Concerto 5.
The very first note of the piano.
Listening to a number of different performances, there is a huge variety of how that note is played.
In some cases (like Kempff/Leitner, Gilels/Szell, Ashkenazy/Haitink, Fleisher/Szell or Perahia) it's barely audible and the piano part starts as a continuous flow.
In others (like Pollini/Bohm, Zimerman/Bernstein, Brendel/Masur, Cliburn) that note is quite stressed and "intense" as if it were the clear cut starting point of the piano part.
With all sorts of in-between nuances (e.g. Michelangeli/Giulini, Brendel/Masur, etc).

Now my question is: is there something on the actual score of the concerto that indicates how this note should be played and therefore which of the two extremes is "more correct"?

Thanks Mahlerian.
If the whole passage (rather than the single note) is marked ff and the pedal is requested, it seems to me that a more "flowing" approach is closer to the score (contrary to my taste - I sort of prefer the "strongest" approach).
Why do you think it doesn't?

In comparison, what are the markings/accents at the very start of the sonata op. 111?

^ With regard to the Emperor Concerto, I would add that when the piano enters, the entire orchestra should still be playing their opening notes ff (to be clinically specific, over the first 7 notes that the piano plays). This makes me think the desired effect is more of the piano line growing naturally out of the orchestral tutti rather than a bald, independent, contrasting attack. It seems to me that had Beethoven wanted a sharp piano attack at the opening, he would have added a sforzando or accent, or quieted the rest of the orchestra. He was not stingy with dynamic markings.

^ Thanks to both Mahlerian and Balthazar, your posts have been very explanatory.