You’re material is becoming better and better with every upload! It’s awesome to see your videography and editing improving! I promise I’ll be a pattern supporter of you once I have some extra American pesos here in a few months!
The Lament bass is so good it can even be found in Ray Charles “Hit The Road Jack” . Next week you cover the chromatic lament? Thy hand Belinda, darkness shades me
Thank you for this and for the PDFs. I was playing with your realizations and within a few minutes I was improvising. So long as I wasn't hyper self critical, I had a lot of fun.
Your style of explaining things and your spot-on humor made my morning surprisingly fun. Now i am gonna jam using my Kontakt library called Noire. Respect and Gratitude!
Great to find you. Thre are so many duffers who have never played a tune by ear tediously explaining the shoddy information written by a well connected incompetent two hundred years ago before demonstrating horrid realisations. I like your style ! Thanks for the generous work you do,
Something else you can do is using 2/4 chords, adding chromatic alterations to chords and sometimes even almost modulate. I am thinking for example doing a tenor cadence on C or having a minor third on A and doing a weak cadence on C 3/6. Would be easier to post a written example I suppose. I suggest looking into Purcell's treatments of grounds and tetrachords (Also to "when I am laid in Earth") to have some interesting examples.
Hallo Michael, Is there a follow up video where Alexander Weimann improvises a chacone??? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Das ist sehr toll und wunderbar.
I really would like to become a patron. But it is very confusing, to me at least. It is (Australian) $10 per ‘werk’. Is that $520 per year? Damned expensive if so I’m sorry to say. But German translation of week does not seem to match, nor does werk seem to translate to month which I would be happy to pay. I think something needs to be cleared up on the patron page
To clarify: it means per work, so per POST that I upload and that a patreon want to have access to. Sounds fair to me... But it is as you said confusing and the options that they offer - per month/work and whatsoever more - is pretty puzzling, I agree.
I see. I’m used to ‘time’ being the factor and assumed therefore that werk=week, or alternatively month. Probably not everyone is as dumb as me but in any case perhaps edit the page to make it clearer. Not everyone will ask about it, and each one that does not ask is a patron you miss out on that would otherwise happily support you. Thanks for the answer
@@terryjones6632I was confused at first because of the word “werk” but finally figured it out that it means per work. It costs $6.50 (US dollars) each time Michael puts out new materials but you can limit the amount per month so you will always know the maximum that you will be charged.
The cascade examples made me think of the Pet Shop Boys ‘it’s a sin’ but I listened to it again and in fact the bass is a leaping fourthwise variant of the lamento
Thanks so much for recommending Pachebels Chaconne! I'm learning it now. It teaches me so much, and it's incredibly beautiful. I wonder why it's not more popular. There are only a few piano recordings.
Hello, question, I wonder about symmetry of bars and cadences. Is there many method to ensure the piece really feels all the statements in it are complete if you know what I mean? For example placing the cadence inside the last bar or inside the last half or last quarter of the last bar - this can change based on the piece. So what influences this? How can I decide how many bars should be in the piece? (In BWV 847 fugue, the most perfect piece in the world there are 31 bars for example and the ending chord comes right on the second half of that 31th bar, so it's not even 30 bars + chord) Just wondering if there's any method or guidelines
This question is formulated in a way that makes it actually hard to understand so I'm jsut gonna ramble: some baroque music is bond to perodical bar grouping (2-, 4- or 8bar chunks), and some is definetly not. Periodical bar grouping is most likely to happen in pieces that have a relation to historical dances: so all the pieces of a suite, Allemandes, Courantes, Sarabandes etc. BUT this is not mandatory, so you'll find dozens of Allemandes or what ever mvt. that does not show a regular bar grouping. It's actually primarily a thing that happens in the smaller "simpler forms" such as the Minuet or the Sarabande. The Chaconne historically emerged from a dance so in many of those pieces - of course depending on the bassline it is drawn from - you'll find a regular bar grouping, e.g. in that F Minor Chaconne by Pachelbel: obvious 4 bar chunks with the typical overlapping of phases where the V in bar 4 of a phase is the dominant to bar 1 of the following phase. I'm actually asking myself if you understood this part of the video the right way :DDD Chaconnes are in triple time (3/4) and most likely the cadence will end on the 1st beat of a bar - BUT there is older forms (17th century stuff) of triple time cadences where the cadence falls on the last beat of the measure. FUGUES though are a completely different topic as there is absolutely no periodical requirements AT ALL... my humble opinion - it makes no sense to count bars at all (apart from checking the proportions of parts between the cadences). In a piece like the mentioned C Minor Fugue (a 4/4 meter) the only metrical requirement regarding cadences is that a cadence falls on the 1 or the 3 of a bar, everything else is allowed. No you gotta tell me which criteria make that C Minor fugue "the most perfect piece in the world"... isn't it actually more like one of the less spectacular of the collection?
@@en-blanc-et-noir Thanks for this awesome rambling! Thank you for answering my question really, I didn't know with fugues it's more whatever I thought there's a particular rule or whatever to it. I know my questions and assumptions can be frustrating for a formally trained musician but please bear with me. What I find perfect about the C minor fugue is simply that every single bar has a very specific purpose and there is no moment wasted, nothing is generic everything is a clear reference to the subject. I feel the C minor fugue is more grounded in that way. The piece begins with the first bar, a memorable theme which flows right into the next idea, a downwards scale which fits the theme. Like before the bar ends there are already fast notes in a scale which flow right into the countersubject that accompanies the second voice entrance in the second bar. Then there is another downward scale but slower which accompanies a portion of the remaining subject. So the subject is built from this figure I don't know how to call, let's call it head figure while the countersubject is built from mainly a scale. The episode that comes next is purely created out of subject motifs. The scale but upwards combined with the subject head. I know Bach does this and it's not new, except this episode won't be forgotten, but the thing is there is no single episode in this fugue that does something "generic" everything is very clearly connected with the subjects. Nothing is just a simple suspension chain, even if it is just that - it's created from subject motifs. (Check out bar 62 from BWV 870 fugue and you will see what I appreciate less when it comes to fugues) I don't want to go too much into the details I realize so I will summarize (but I've looked with amazement at every bar in this piece). Basically the first episodes prepares us for the idea of episode containing this rapid-scale motif. The second episode is brilliant because it starts as if it's going to play the subject like in bar 3 but actually perfectly going right into a canonic episode that is on top of a scale motif (So everything had a setup, we already seen the subject there so we had an expectation broken and we already experienced a downward scale motif) and the episode from bars 5-6 is repeated again with a small upgrade and twice the size at bars 17-19. And even the scale from bars 9-11 is inverted at bars 13-14. And not only just inverted, combined with a different element of the subject. If all I said felt too chaotic - in short, every single development in this piece had a clear setup and there was no moment wasted almost. Every moment from this piece is really a clear reference to the subject or countersubject.
ha, in my opinion what you describe here is procedures that characterizs a certain type of fugue writing or fugue improvisation generally and isn't just a feature of that individual piece. :D No offence though! :D Good that you looked at it that closely...
@@en-blanc-et-noir Hey! That's not an offense I just wish I found more fugues that truly do this in such a way that every moment is truly created in such a way by the subject's components. If you really have any advices (even outside of Bach) I would be very interested haha Also would like to ask your opinion indeed, what would be the most spectacular fugue that does not have stretto/stretto augmentation and such techniques?
This video is absolutely great! I improvise classical/baroque/romantic at the piano quite often, but I do it by heart and mediocrely, and this video inspired me to learn classical improvisation seriously. Thank you, and kudos!
@@en-blanc-et-noir absolut nicht schlimm...just made me curious 'cos I 'm actually just aware of 4/6 chords on pedalpoints/cadenzas and they don't present the 3....where could I find some stuff about this 3/4/6 bad mfs?
@@notasinglef1604 lol well haha, alright then! I'd say the 3/4/6 is a thing that can be seen on many Rule of the octaves (e.g. Kellner, Heinichen and deffo some Italian sources as well) on the descending 6th degree in minor. In German "chordal theory" this would be an inversion of the 5/6-chord of the ascending 4 - so as well a predominant, and the same collection of tones. So it's actually good to know about inversions. Don't believe what some noobs are rambling about inversions and Roman numerals and stuff, it's mostly rubbish and comes from Partimento "red pillers" that want to throw the baby out with the bath water. That 3/4/6 isn't actually a bad guy haha, e.g. Scarlatti uses it from time to time to do his legendary 6-5-pendulums! Check definitely minor key Rule of the octave for this chord. Some will probably just show a 6 but many show a 3/4/6.
You're welcome, John! :D Is there anything else that you're getting nervous about?? E.g. I recon I used B natural even in bars where the B flat is in the bass...
