Thread: Baroque "chord progressions"

Originally Posted by isorhythm

Literally no one will ever tell you "chords did not exist in Baroque music," as that would be wrong and insane.

I don't believe that. In fact, this entire thread starts with these words:

Originally Posted by sealep

I know the concept of chord progression is not applicable in the period of the Baroque. However, I cannot help but hear certain progressions as I listen to Bach orchestral suites or concertos, or Vivaldi for that matter. They seems to rise or fall on the diatonic scale by a step, repeating the same motif. Does that make sense? For example, Bach seems to like repeating downward scales on successively incrementing steps; building tension upward with the key, while descending melodically.

Originally Posted by isorhythm

Some notable major seventh chords in Bach are in WTC book 1 C major prelude. Since the piece a series of broken chords each lasting one measure, it would be very hard to argue that Bach wasn't thinking in terms of chords or that he considered the major sevenths to be less "real" than the other chords in the piece.

Another major seventh occurs in the ritornello of "Sheep may safely graze."

I'm sure there are many others, those two come to mind because they're very famous.

I agree that it sounds as if those are major seventh chords. But CP theory (and this includes Baroque) doesn't recognize these as chords. And I think Bach thought contrapuntally (not harmonically except in a very general sense).

This shows us that Bach and contrapuntal music in general is not based on how things sound harmonically, but is based on strictly-defined voice-leading procedures and concepts of "non-harmonic tones."

Originally Posted by millionrainbows

....
I agree that it sounds as if those are major seventh chords. But CP theory (and this includes Baroque) doesn't recognize these as chords. And I think Bach thought contrapuntally (not harmonically except in a very general sense).

This shows us that Bach and contrapuntal music in general is not based on how things sound harmonically, but is based on strictly-defined voice-leading procedures and concepts of "non-harmonic tones."

It's much more nuanced than that. It's fair to say that Bach did frequently let the line override the vertical, resulting in a particular harmonic spice that gives his work immense emotional power, but one can't write counterpoint in his style without harmonic thought and consideration - it's just not possible, the two trains of thought are the two sides of a single coin.

Part of Bach's genius was to expand the reach of the emotional potential in momentary dissonance imv. He did this by allowing the linear to follow it's own logic seemingly unimpeded at times, giving rise to clashes that as a result, seem inevitable but also calculated. However, the individual lines are also cogniscent of their vertical obligations and as such are also determined by the vertical.

Bach, as well as thinking contrapuntally, also had to think harmonically and not just in a "very general sense", but rather from beat to beat, phrase to phrase, cadence to cadence and as a consideration for defining form.

The best way to gain a deep understanding of the synergy between harmonic and contrapuntal thought is to learn to write counterpoint in Bach's style, it then becomes clear that one needs the other in more than a superficial or general way.

Originally Posted by mikeh375

It's much more nuanced than that.

Okay, but I'm speaking generally. Bach did not think "now I'm going to a I major seventh chord" when writing. He may have heard the harmonic effect of a M7 "chord" but he saw it as a non-harmonic tone and treated it as that.

It's fair to say that Bach did frequently let the line override the vertical, resulting in a particular harmonic spice that gives his work immense emotional power, but one can't write counterpoint in his style without harmonic thought and consideration - it's just not possible, the two trains of thought are the two sides of a single coin.

I didn't say that ALL harmonic thought was excluded; only instances of "I M7" which was used from the beginning as an example of a "non-harmonic tone" instead of being thought of as a chord.

...it's just not possible, the two trains of thought are the two sides of a single coin.

No they aren't. There are specific exclusions of "non-harmonic tones" as mentioned above. I'm focussing on differences, not on similarities.

Part of Bach's genius was to expand the reach of the emotional potential in momentary dissonance imv. He did this by allowing the linear to follow it's own logic seemingly unimpeded at times, giving rise to clashes that as a result, seem inevitable but also calculated. However, the individual lines are also cogniscent of their vertical obligations and as such are also determined by the vertical.

Well, I don't know about this description. I hear contrapuntal music as distinctly different than music where chord changes are done in 'blocks.'

Bach, as well as thinking contrapuntally, also had to think harmonically and not just in a "very general sense", but rather from beat to beat, phrase to phrase, cadence to cadence and as a consideration for defining form.

There's a flip side to that coin. If, as you say, harmonic thinking is required in order to write music, then it was in an undefined, vague form which no one can explain. How did the Baroque "classify chords" if they did not recognize the idea of chords?

That's why I contend that Bach thought more predominantly linearly (because this was counterpoint). Otherwise, he would deliberately have used M7 chords. In fact, Bach did not think "in chords" nor did he recognize chord inversions.

The best way to gain a deep understanding of the synergy between harmonic and contrapuntal thought is to learn to write counterpoint in Bach's style, it then becomes clear that one needs the other in more than a superficial or general way.

Harmonic thinking did not exist in Bach's time, so no one has explained exactly how he thought about harmonic root movement or harmonic "progressions."
That is, unless he was "cheating" and thinking harmonically anyway. But how? Bach did not recognize "chord function" or "chord inversion."

If this is true, Bach was WRONG in rejecting Rameau's theories of chord inversion.

Originally Posted by BabyGiraffe

Music has nothing to do with morality and feelings!!! You can associate certain sounds with some kind of cultural norms, it doesn't mean anything.

That's wrong; it can be. As early as Gregorian chant, certain phrases represented Christ's ascension, crucifixion, etc.

The writers actually felt as if this had supernatural consequences. Who knows, maybe Messiaen still thought this in the 20th century. And it might be true, for all you know. But you're a total rationalist.

Originally Posted by isorhythm

If you want to get an idea of how he thought, you have to study his music. That's all there is to it.

..even better...practise writing it.

Originally Posted by BabyGiraffe

Music has nothing to do with morality and feelings!!! You can associate certain sounds with some kind of cultural norms, it doesn't mean anything.
And using stock motives/phrases/whole sequences has little to do with order or balance in composition, more with craftsmanship and commercial productivity + lack of creativity (or else Telemann wouldn't write 3000 compositions). And this remark can be applied to other musical periods and famous composers.

"Music has nothing to do with morality and feelings!!!"

Huh? What would call it if not feelings and lofty ideals?

Originally Posted by mikeh375

..even better...practise writing it.

That's right. I actually teach the harmonisation of Bach chorales at undergraduate level and I usually start off following Bach's own teaching method whereby I give my students the soprano and bass parts and ask them to compose the alto and tenor voices. This involves of course contrapuntal writing for those parts but also demands a firm anchoring of the A & S voices to the underlying harmonic structure.