Passing notes

[derkveen]

I was wondering if this is correct: the documentation states "The preceding note must be metrically stronger than the dissonant note, and the note the passing tone is dissonant against must begin before the passing tone and must sustain at least through the end of the passing tone. " In my understanding the notes on beat 1 all have the same accent. The definition of an accented passing note doesn't fit entirely, but I think it would come closer.

**kern  **cdata **kern  **cdata
*part1  *   *part1  *
*staff2 *   *staff1 *
*clefF4 *   *clefG2 *
*k[f#]  *   *k[f#]  *
*G: *   *G: *
*M2/4   *   *M2/4   *
=1  =1  =1  =1
2F# .   2a  .
=2  =2  =2  =2
2F# .   2b-X    P
=3  =3  =3  =3
[2F#    .   [2cc    .
=4  =4  =4  =4
2F#]    .   2cc]    .
==  ==  ==  ==
*-  *-  *-  *-
!!!system-decoration: {(s1,s2)}

[craigsapp]

The definition of an accented passing note doesn't fit entirely, but I think it would come closer.

I think that this should be labeled as an accented passing tone:

https://doc.verovio.humdrum.org/filter/dissonant/#accented-passing-tones-v-v

What do you think @alexandermorgan?

Also, the dissonant tool is designed for Renaissance-era music, so there will be limitations when applying to later music where the beat is at the whole note level (which does not seem to be the problem with your example, but also note that accidentals are not used in the analysis).

Here is a more appropriate example for the expected sort of music the tool usually looks at (I added some intervals before/after in case there is an endpoint problem in the analysis), but the note in question still gets labeled as P instead of V:

**kern  **kern
*clefF4 *clefG2
*M2/1   *M2/1
=1  =1
0F  0f
=2  =2
0F  1a
.   1b
=3  =3
0F  0cc
=4  =4
0G  0b
=   =
*-  *-
!!!filter: dissonant

[alexandermorgan]

Hi Craig, I think that your example in 2/1 correctly notates that as an unaccented passing tone, because beat two is weaker than the preparation and resolution (both beat 1). But the OP's example is a little different. I would agree that the OP's passing tone should be labeled as accented if it were really in 2/4, but there's nothing musically in that example that suggests 2/4, so this looks more like a mis-notated excerpt. I get that the example was probably made simple to be minimal and complete, but this starts to get at Craig's point that this tool was designed for Renaissance music where 2/4 is never encountered. Dissonance is one of the main aural determinants of what is heard as strong and weak metrically, so I would have to see a real Renaissance example demonstrating this issue before recommending that the label logic be changed. Sounds like a fun query to run with Humdrum and VHV!