Czerny Op.599 No.10

  1. There seems to be a parallel octave between measure 3 and 4. (Marked with red)
  2. The seventh of the dominant seventh chord in measure 3 seems to have a "wrong" resolution. It is supposed to resolve downwards to E, while in this piece it moves upwards. (Marked with blue)

These contradict what I have learned in harmony class. Is there an explanation for these "bad" voiceleadings?

  • 2
    Assuming your harmony class taught you about voice leading in the context of four part vocal harmony, those "rules" only apply in that particular context. Those "rules" also carried over to a greater or lesser extent into the baroque and classical periods, but by the time Czerny composed, thinking and tastes had changed a lot. – Todd Wilcox Aug 25 '17 at 13:21
  • 3
    As is said frequently on this site - because it sounds fine. The rules of harmony are more like guidelines, although one can't deny they work. But they don't need strict adherence all of the time, especially as time has moved on from when they came about. – Tim Aug 25 '17 at 13:43

Many composers had these "bad" resolutions, and to my knowledge there is no primary evidence (letters, etc.) where they explain why they did it.

(But note that the Schirmer edition, revised and edited by Buonamici, fixes this very error by removing the G in the left hand; see here!)

I have two thoughts: a practical explanation, and a theoretical one.

From a practical standpoint, it's possible Czerny wanted m. 4 to be the exact same as m. 1 (which the student will soon play again, considering the repeat). In the Buonamici edition (linked aboved), m. 4 is different from m. 1 both in orchestration and in fingering, and perhaps Czerny explicitly avoided this outcome.

From a theoretical standpoint, we can understand the non-resolving F in m. 3 as an example of a register transfer. This falls in line with the Schenkerian analytic tradition, and it basically claims that this F does resolve, it only resolves an octave higher (= it transfers register up an octave). I'm not personally convinced by this argument, but it's one you'll encounter among music theorists.

| improve this answer | |

Even ignoring the fact that it is early 19th century keyboard music, not 16th century vocal music, I wouldn't analyse this as "parallel octaves". Octave doubling is very common.

In the left hand, the G and D progress to unison C's. The F resolves onto E (correctly for a dominant 7th chord).

The left hand G in the final chord is an "extra note" - but without it, the doubled third of the chord (E) in the left and right hands would sound worse.

In any case this collection is titled "Practical Exercises for Beginners" - it's not meant to be art music! For a beginner, covering up the doubled E with an extra note is a more musical solution, and easier to play, than expecting the beginner first to recognize (by analysing of the harmony, which the beginner probably hasn't studied at all yet!) that the E would need to be played softer than the other notes in the chord, and then to have a good enough keyboard technique to actually play it that way.

Note that the left hand in the final cadence is identical, except it does omit the G, and because the right hand is different, there is no doubled third.

The Schenkerian solution of "register transfer" is just counting the number of angels on pin-heads IMHO. In any case, Schenker was born 10 years after Czerny died, so any Schenkerian analysis is at best rewriting history.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.