The question of the organ points

[johentsch]

Example: C major context, tonic organ point on C, two upper voices go \ \ \ <e c'>

Three possible philosophies of annotation - a general rule has to be found:

1. I[I IV viio6 I] (implicit harmonies, considering organ point note where possible/useful)
2. I[I6 IV viio64 I6] (without considering organ point note)
3. I[I I(64) I(74) I] (a kind of counterpoint annotation; would be correct even without indicating organ point)

The Guidelines suggest the latter solution. EDIT: The updates have been updated in this regard a while ago. See answer below.

Can we find a general rule that covers tonic AND dominant organ points? Consider also: V[I or V[V(64) or V[I64

Should a simple 35-46-35 change even be labeled as an organ point? I suggest that for an Organpoint, there should be at least two additional harmonies. Here, for example, I added an organ point because of this thought: KV 545 ii mm. 2-4. Here, however, I corrected the annotator's organ point and wrote I I(94) I instead: KV 457 ii m. 24 Then again, a simple i i(64) i has been annotated as an organ point here because it is "auskomponiert" KV 333 iii mm. 65-9 In the following example, I removed the organ point although there are 4 harmonies above the same bass note for the following reasons:

• it is not the typical formal lieu for an organ point
• it doesn't have the typical form where the organ point starts and ends with the respective harmony, e.g. I[I X Y I] or V[V X Y V7]
• the bass note is a constituent of every harmony KV 333 ii, m. 19

Examples for considering the question:

KV 279, III mm. 72-75 KV 279, III mm. 96-99 KV 280, I mm. 2-5 KV 280, I m. 14 KV 280, II mm. 9-10 (ATM without organ point - should it be added?) KV 281, II mm. 47-52 KV 282, II mm. 57-60 KV 283, I mm. 51-3 BWV 813 m. 9

Pedal points

In KV 281, III (mm. 120-4), the rondo theme reappears over an organ point which is annotated as such; but just before that, it reappeared under a pedal point (mm. 115-9). Should this be annotated as an organ point as well? mm. 120-4 mm. 115-9

Double organ points

In Grieg's Lyrical Pieces, there are organ points consisting of two notes, generally a perfect fifths apart. Should they be annotated? And how?

• Option 1: I(+5)[I (the Roman numeral before the opening [ designates the root note, not the chord, so the already implemented notation for added notes could be used)
• Option 2: I[V[I ... I]] (embedded notation)

[johentsch]

• I[I IV viio6 I] (implicit harmonies, considering organ point note where possible/useful)
• I[I6 IV viio64 I6] (without considering organ point note)

With the second solution, upon analysing a piece's harmony labels only, you get I6 which might not be the accurate chord description, for example if the beginning of the organ point is the last event of a PAC. Therefore, the first suggestion should be preferred to the second. Example: Mozart K279-1.mscx, m. 12.3

[johentsch]

This is another example where the chord labels are a hypothetical analysis but it is really difficult to hear those chords. Perception seems to work differently with pedal points. We should think about the idea to omit inversions in such places where you don't really recognize the chord form over the bass. So my suggestion would be this:

[allorens]

I can't access the examples. Could you please add me to that part of your repo until after Friday's meeting?

IMHO:

• Organ points: option no. 3 misses the point of the organ note not necessarily being part of the harmonies above it. Comment: I'm not quite sure the number of harmonies cam always be determinant for annotating an organ point or not. For instance, scoring, metric position and figuration may convert a note into a felt organ point, as I'd say it's the case here (I would annotate neither i iv64 i nor i i(64) i:

Also the duration of the passage may be a factor too.

• Pedal points: I'd annotate as organs too.
• Double organ points: if superimposition of harmonies is allowed (see #31 ), another option could be I*V[I...I]

[johentsch]

The current version of the guidelines has no strict rules but a rule of thumb. For deciding whether or not to use organ point notation at all:

The two criteria must apply for using the pedal-point annotation:

• if it involves three or more distinct harmonic events sharing the same bass note *at least one harmony appears of which the pedal note is not a component.

For the question of inversions it says:

If the bass note is a part of the harmony, you write the inversion corresponding to the bass note; otherwise, the inversion of the chord above. But, more importantly, another rule can override this: The harmonic progression above the organ point should be meaningful in itself. For example, if there is a fauxbourdon, you might not want to include the bass note but highlight the sixth chords: I[IV6 iii6 ii6 I6 viio6 I] rather than I[IV64 iii6 ii6 I viio6 I]

I think one of the more general questions in this regard is whether organ point notation should demarcate only "real" organ and pedal points or whether the notation can also be "abused" for expressing that one harmony occurs over the bass note of an adjacent harmony (think of an opening cadenza I ii2 V65 I, the "abused" version would be I[I ii] V65 I). So far we have discouraged the latter solution.

Another thing that we might discuss and clarify in the guideliens is this: There is annotator disagreement in whether an organ point should always start the moment where the corresponding bass note enters the first time or only when the organ point "feel" starts. An example for the latter can be seen in this issues example of KV 280, I above.

And then, yes, we should also clarify the questions of the pedals once and for all. The matter of double organ points had been raised before but would augment the complexity of our questions by a lot.

For Ana's example: That's exactly what I would have written because it's "composed out".