To Composernotes: For example, be sure to use the ° symbol for diminished triads and fully-diminished seventh chords (vii°6, vii°7) and the ° symbol with a slash through it that runs SW to NE to denote half-diminished seventh chords (such as ii7 in minor). In minor, the correct roman numerals for the triads are i, ii°, III, iv, V, VI, and vii° (when it's a chord built on the LEADING TONE), sometimes VII (when it's built on the SUBTONIC). In measure 7, the subdominant harmony (iv6) needs to written with a lowercase iv, not "IV." Also, the harmony on beat 3 of m. 7 is an incomplete vii°7/V (the F# and C alone are enough to signal that the harmony is effectively F#, A-natural, C, Eb --you might ask, why not a vii° triad? diminished TRIADS do not appear in root-position). This is where you are having some difficulty: this is what's called a secondary leading-tone chord. It's a vii°7, yes, but of G (which is V). So, the correct analysis is vii°7/V. The "seven fully-diminished seven of five" (which is how you would say it) is confirmed in its function as a leading-tone chord by the fact that the vii°7/V actually GOES TO a G chord (V). In measure 8, you have V on beat 1 (good), i on beat 2 (also correct), but V4/2 / iv on beat 3. What is iv in C minor? It's F minor (which is where the chord resolves to on the downbeat of m. 9). What is V of iv in C minor? If iv is F, then V of F is C. The chord there (C, E-natural, G Bb) should tip you off that it's chromatic (being that the E-natural is not found in C minor --additionally, the Bb, instead of B-natural, provides another clue), and as such must be analyzed as a non-diatonic chord, specifically here as a secondary function: here a SECONDARY DOMINANT. Because Bb (the seventh of the chord) is in the bass, the analysis must reflect the fact that it's in third inversion (thus, V4/2). Because it's not the dominant of C minor, but of another chord in C minor (iv), it must be analyzed as such: V4/2 / iv. Also, note that dominant seventh chords in first inversion almost invariably resolve to the root-position version of whatever chord they're acting as dominant seventh to (e.g., V6/5 / V resolves to V), whereas dominant seventh chords in third inversion almost invariably resolve to the first-inversion version of whatever chord they're acting as dominant seventh to (e.g., V4/2 / iv resolves to iv6). I hope that helps a little. Email me if you want some more information.

No. There is not "always more than one way" to analyze harmonies in progressive common-practice-era tonal music. One MUST account for secondary functions as such. There is no single music theory textbook that would advocate the "system" (I use quotation marks to indicate that there is, in fact, NOTHING systematic or accepted about it) that you've invented here. The very purpose of showing secondary functions is twofold: to indicate their tonicizing function on subsequent chords and to differentiate their chord-quality from what a diatonic label would suggest. I taught music theory at USC's Thornton School for nearly 15 years. As one of the US's top-10 Conservatories, I can assure you that the "system" you've invented here would earn you a grade of D or lower, as it indicates that you've learned nothing about the primacy of secondary dominants/secondary leading-tone chords or the technique by which to encapsulate non-diatonic chord qualities. If you can name ANY analysis text that accords with your view, please give me the name. Otherwise, to avoid embarrassing yourself and misguiding others, I'd recommend either taking your wrong-headed analysis down or re-doing it upon learning the universally-accepted mode of analysis.

I absolutely LOVE you videos Keep up the good work man!!!

Tempo Indications: 1. Allegro vivace 2. meno Allegro

Tuning: 0c: A4 = 440Hz

While I truly appreciate your effort here, I'm curious as to why you seem to avoid the use of secondary functions as an analytic label?

The playback’s not fast enough! lol

Thanks! Bach clearly applied new musical techniques. The use of triplets in the subject and subject inversion in the fugue exposition were not seen in the WTC Book I

👏

Analyse in PDF please. Thank you very much

JS Bach, the inventor of stride.

Thank you for this!!🙏

Not accurate. Bars 40-41 for example? Nothing?

I think of it with a less evident and less constant staccato, given the minor key and the two-beat beat. The frivolous character does not enhance the piece.

Bach transcribed a Vivaldi Concerto for solo keyboard and this prelude is very close to being pretty similar.

Beautiful piece.

tanto el análisis como la interpretación es fenomenal

1:00 is there a measure missing between 22 and 23?

2:34 B7/F# is wrong Correct Is B7/A

My top favourite of all his 48.

Where would you consider the parts of the music to be homophonic?

What a beautiful articulation! So clear and crispy ❤

could you do an analysis of mozart sonata for two pianos in d major harmonic analysis?

Non c'è musica più strugente perche ' lasci la propria anima

I don’t understand why I love Bartok, but can’t stand most composers from his era

wow bless my youtube today i came across you today, I have been looking for people analyzing P&Fs for a while now and your analysis of this BWV 875 is really nice! and your channel has a lot of good stuff too! could you do more analysis on the bach's 48?

Your link is invalid

Keep it up🎉🎉🎉

Thank you for the analysis. I wish you had some explaination on the video :)

Very informative! This is one of my Bartok's favorite. So drummy and percussive and I love it.

Inversion? Is it not voice exchange? To ly knowledge the word inversion is already taken

The initial theme reminds me of the third movement of his d minor harpsichord concerto.

noob

Wonderful ! Thank you 🙏🏻 In measure 18, my edition does not move from C to Bb, it simply repeats the C twice as bass. Interesting!

Merci énormément l’interprétation est magnifique. J’ai joué cette fugue il y a quarante ans. Il faut que je m’y remette

Chiunque l'abbia suonato l'ha eseguito malissimo.

👏

Ah thank you that is so helpful. I'm writing my own invention and this was one of my favorites growing up so i wanted to use it for study. BTW, the sequence starting in measure 8 is the theme inverted and shortened into 16th notes. Thanks again.

Your channel is a great breathe of fresh air. If you take requests can you analyse Bach 2 part invention 15 in bm? The ascending episode has me stumped.

The first chord in the key of D minor is a G half-diminished, not fully diminished. So Gm7b5 (or some other appropriate symbol) instead of Gdim7. Thanks for all the rest though!

Wow! Beautiful.

And probably completely written by Bach in a couple of hours. lol

This was very helpful.

Well, all the themes are completely different. Handel's and Bach's theme begin with the same motive. Mozart's doesn't. The structure of the three compostions are also very different.

I can’t unhear how similar it sounds to Elgar’s Enigma Theme! Especially the Nimrod variation

I have to create a mockup of this for my course. I don't read music so it's proving difficult. Thanks for this. If you're around for a zoom call or anything I will pay you! By the way I can't see which instruments are playing?

Measure 18 beat 3 Measure 27 beat 2 Measure 41 beat 2 do not have 7ths in the B-flat chords

Broken LINK for the PDF you offered... After the Holiday I will attempt to solve your riddle viz Bb/ F# as noted in your analysis of this piece [7th measure 23rd Bar].... it's always possible that the easiest explanation is the correct one... from the composers [notes?] to the sheet music you drew your analysis from >>> there may have been many hands involved & a simple type, misread note... or even the composer making a small error without noticing.... all could explain any contradiction one finds in any work even if received from the composer/author whomever themselves >>> when you are looking at CENTURIES between when the composer actually wrote the piece & all the publishers, record makers etc in between until the sheet music lands in your hands,,, it's a dubious proposition to accept that there were ZERO changes, amendments believing they were corrections when they were not etc or small errors in typo, note interpretation etc... so my very very preliminary take is that F# makes "sense" in the Circle of 5ths type of making sense... but here is the REAL PROBLEM... the reason a piece of music is valued to be passed down the centuries & reproduced & analyzed etc IS because you are dealing with a composer with an exceptional mind >>> hence for these dudes there really are no rules... they are in truth the rule makers to a great degree.... so the TWO things I would always consider 1st are: a) Is this some error in type/reproduction/transcription from composers original notes or worse from some clown who "thought" he was faithfully reproducing what he "thought" was Papa Bach's intentions when he is just rewriting a masterpiece that he lacked the capacity to understand.... so error as presented on the actual sheet music you are reading from as a SOURCE for your analysis... is the first thing I would always keep in mind AND b) Is this seeming contradiction/error in fact something I simply do not understand musically because the great composers BROKE the RULES of what a typical person would consider the PROPER arrangement.... First I would always eliminate BOTH of those possibilities before proceeding with any of my own ideas... That being said I may not have anything of value to offer but I am always willing to give it the ole college try... just after Thanksgiving. Appreciate all your insight & hard work- you've got a great channel!

what happens with your music sheet analysis ? Thank you.

You get TWO subscribers for the price of one... something I have never done & may never do again >>> I am so overjoyed to discover your YT channel I subbed with BOTH my YT accts!- so IOW = THANKS!