Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516 LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 240

Thread: Baroque "chord progressions"

  1. #181
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    1,267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BabyGiraffe View Post
    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.
    The entire baroque movement had as a goal to glorify the church, who at that time had enormous power. Of course music is tied to morality and feelings, and even deeper in politics, culture, and societal values; it's baffling that you think otherwise.

  2. Likes millionrainbows liked this post
  3. #182
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,994
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by isorhythm View Post
    If you want to get an idea of how he thought, you have to study his music. That's all there is to it.
    Oh, a general explanation would suffice. I don't want to work you too hard. Anyway, you know how I love generalities!

  4. #183
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,994
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    The idea that because Bach didn't entertain certain analytical notions (and do we know exactly what analytical notions he did entertain?), he didn't "think harmonically," is ridiculous.
    Then why did academics state in this thread, an assumption that the OP's post clearly recognized, that "chords" were not a conception in Baroque compositional practice? This is not after-the fact analysis; this is compositional thinking, and Bach adheres to the norms of 'non-harmonic tones.'

    His harmonic thinking exceeded in complexity and power that of any other composer of his time, and it was precisely what enabled him to give coherence to his contrapuntal thinking, which also exceeded in complexity and power that of any other composer of his time. "Thinking," in the act of composition, is not academic analysis.
    Now you are posing contradictory ideas, which you can't explain or describe, "except in writing music" or "analyzing Bach's music" which are inescapably tied to present-day harmonic thinking. Since Bach wasn't a theorist, it can't be analyzed except on its own terms.

    It appears that the assertion that "chords were not recognized in Baroque era thinking" is therefore misleading, if not downright incorrect, whether he did or did not in retrospect. So, what's the explanation?

    Ironically, then, Bach and contrapuntal music in general defers to strictly-defined voice-leading procedures and linear "non-harmonic tones" in lieu of "harmonic ideas" like chords and chord inversions. That sounds like a "theory of analysis" to me.

    It also raises the question, "why did Bach reject Rameau's ideas?" (see C.P.E. Bach's The True Art of Keyboard Playing)

    Plus, if theory is "after the fact" analysis of common practices, it seems misleading to separate them to the degree that has been attempted here, if the ideas are derived from the music itself.

    I didn't say that ALL "modern style" harmonic thought was excluded; only instances similar to the "I M7" which was used from the beginning as an example of a "non-harmonic tone" instead of being thought of as a chord, or 'chords' like C-Eb-G-Ab (Cmin/Ab maj polychord in Sinfonia 9).

    Bach always "defers" to the line, not harmony/chords. In this sense, if he was thinking harmonically, it deferred to counterpoint and was a much more primitive way 'harmonic' using the ear, which I've been an advocate for all along! Thanks for reinforcing my way of "harmonic" thinking.

    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? 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."
    Last edited by millionrainbows; May-13-2020 at 22:19.

  5. #184
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,994
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1996D View Post
    The entire baroque movement had as a goal to glorify the church, who at that time had enormous power. Of course music is tied to morality and feelings, and even deeper in politics, culture, and societal values; it's baffling that you think otherwise.
    Yes, music is tied to those things, but BabyGiraffe was being "totally objective and rational" and was speaking of the music "objectively and formally," out of all contexts except its existence as "vibrations", excluding the human/subjective dimension. See my thread "Can Music Be Objectified" or something along those lines. There area many 'rational thinkers' out there.
    Last edited by millionrainbows; May-13-2020 at 22:05.

  6. #185
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    1,267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    Yes, music is tied to those things, but BabyGiraffe was being "totally objective and rational" and was speaking of the music "objectively and formally," out of all contexts except its existence as "vibrations", excluding the human/subjective dimension. See my thread "Can Music Be Objectified" or something along those lines. There area many 'rational thinkers' out there.
    It's either cowardice or lack of completeness as a human being.

  7. #186
    Senior Member isorhythm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Here, start with this:


  8. Likes TalkingHead liked this post
  9. #187
    Senior Member Woodduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ashland, OR
    Posts
    17,469
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    Then why did academics state in this thread, an assumption that the OP's post clearly recognized, that "chords" were not a conception in Baroque compositional practice? This is not after-the fact analysis; this is compositional thinking, and Bach adheres to the norms of 'non-harmonic tones.'
    The OP states: "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. "

    The reason he hears chord progressions is that the chord progressions are there to be heard. His intitial assumption is simply wrong.

    Now you are posing contradictory ideas, which you can't explain or describe, "except in writing music" or "analyzing Bach's music" which are inescapably tied to present-day harmonic thinking. Since Bach wasn't a theorist, it can't be analyzed except on its own terms.
    Bach's music, on its own terms, is (more or less) contrapuntal with clear harmonic (tonal) organization. There is no contradiction in acknowledging these factors to be interdependent.

    It appears that the assertion that "chords were not recognized in Baroque era thinking" is therefore misleading, if not downright incorrect, whether he did or did not in retrospect.
    Yes, it is incorrect, and obviously so. The first prelude in TWTC is a crystal-clear study in chord progression. But for anyone who can hear it, any movement of any of his concertos is too.

    So, what's the explanation?
    For what?

    Ironically, then, Bach and contrapuntal music in general defers to strictly-defined voice-leading procedures and linear "non-harmonic tones" in lieu of "harmonic ideas" like chords and chord inversions. That sounds like a "theory of analysis" to me.
    This formulation confuses theory with practice. We don't speak of procedures as being in lieu of ideas. Bach wasn't composing demonstrations of ideas, except in obvious instances (e.g. the possibilities of canon and fugue). His voice-leading principles didn't contradict principles of harmonic progression.

    It also raises the question, "why did Bach reject Rameau's ideas?" (see C.P.E. Bach's [I]The True Art of Keyboard Playing)
    I don't know enough to answer that. What exactly did Rameau say about harmony that Bach rejected? Whatever it was, it was a theoretical argument. Nothing about Bach's music suggests that "he was not a harmonic thinker."

    Bach always "defers" to the line, not harmony/chords.
    Really? As, for instance, when he alters a fugal subject to make it fit a harmonic scheme?

    In this sense, if he was thinking harmonically, it deferred to counterpoint and was a much more primitive way 'harmonic' using the ear, which I've been an advocate for all along! Thanks for reinforcing my way of "harmonic" thinking.
    I think we all advocate using the ear. The other one too.

    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.
    What's vague about Bach's harmony?

    How did the Baroque "classify chords" if they did not recognize the idea of chords? 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."
    Does anyone know exactly how he thought "about" it? Is that the question? Or is the question whether and how he thought harmonically? You keep mixing up these two questions. It's no wonder this thread is thirteen pages long.
    Last edited by Woodduck; May-14-2020 at 00:58.

  10. #188
    Senior Member EdwardBast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,197
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    Okay, I get it. It's okay to tell a modern harmonic thinker like myself that "major seventh chords on the I (tonic) degree do not really exist in Baroque music because they contain non-harmonic tones," but if this is used to demonstrate that, in this instance "Bach did not think harmonically" it's wrong?
    Bach treated nearly all 7ths as linear dissonances. This doesn't mean he wasn't thinking harmonically. He was thinking of triads with linear dissonances as passing tones, suspensions, and so on. I'm not sure why you find this so difficult to grasp

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    Why did the academic thinker who asserted that "chords were not recognized as such in the Baroque" even bring this up, then?
    Who said this?

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    It also raises the question, "why did Bach reject Rameau's ideas?" (see C.P.E. Bach's The True Art of Keyboard Playing)
    You keep claiming this. I challenged you to show any evidence that J.S. Bach rejected Rameau's theories. You haven't.
    Last edited by EdwardBast; May-14-2020 at 02:09.

    Your frogs make me shudder with intolerable loathing and I shall be miserable for the rest of my life remembering them.
    — Mikhail Bulgakov, The Fatal Eggs

    Originality is a device untalented people use to impress other untalented people and to protect themselves from talented people.
    — Basil Valentine

  11. Likes TalkingHead liked this post
  12. #189
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,994
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1996D View Post
    It's either cowardice or lack of completeness as a human being.
    I don't think you should make it personal; you should understand that this is the way BabyGiraffe thinks. He's actually quite knowledgable in the area of tuning, although he's not always clear to laymen.
    Last edited by millionrainbows; May-14-2020 at 12:44.

  13. Likes mikeh375 liked this post
  14. #190
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,994
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    The OP states: "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. "

    The reason he hears chord progressions is that the chord progressions are there to be heard. His intitial assumption is simply wrong.
    Not wrong; I see exactly what he means. And your reply, as well as the general consensus, only reinforces what I said as far back as the "Music is Harmonic..." thread. I.E., the ear is the arbiter of what works musically.

    Bach's music, on its own terms, is (more or less) contrapuntal with clear harmonic (tonal) organization. There is no contradiction in acknowledging these factors to be interdependent.
    Yes, but here's the rub: it has already been acknowledged that Bach was "thinking harmonically" without the benefit of a codified system of harmony, chord function, or root movement. There is only one possible conclusion: Bach was doing it by "ear," on the basis of what he was hearing harmonically. Bach's "function" was derived by listening. Just as I always said earlier, to the distress of Woodduck and EdwardBast, "function" is a universal harmonic concept of "ear logic" which is based on how intervals sound in relation to I, the tonic/key note

    https://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/...odel-part.html

    The first prelude in TWTC is a crystal-clear study in chord progression. But for anyone who can hear it, any movement of any of his concertos is too.
    You forgot to mention: harmonic theory of "function" was not developed in the Baroque. Bach was determining "function" by ear. Also, he was not writing "chord progressions" per se; he was writing lines.

    This formulation confuses theory with practice. We don't speak of procedures as being in lieu of ideas. Bach wasn't composing demonstrations of ideas, except in obvious instances (e.g. the possibilities of canon and fugue). His voice-leading principles didn't contradict principles of harmonic progression.
    "Principles of harmonic progression" was an idea not yet articulated. A procedure is a procedure. Bach's procedures were based on what he heard, not on as-yet unformulated ideas of harmonic progression.

    This whole thread is proving all my earlier ideas about harmonic thinking and using the ear instead of rigid idea-constructs. Thank you, everyone!
    Last edited by millionrainbows; May-14-2020 at 14:25.

  15. #191
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,994
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardBast View Post
    Bach treated nearly all 7ths as linear dissonances. This doesn't mean he wasn't thinking harmonically. He was thinking of triads with linear dissonances as passing tones, suspensions, and so on. I'm not sure why you find this so difficult to grasp.
    I don't know why you can't see my point, then: Bach was doing it by ear. his linear rules were there, but any harmonic factors not covered by these rules were arrived at by listening. Everyone here has already admitted this fact.

  16. #192
    Senior Member EdwardBast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,197
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    I don't know why you can't see my point, then: Bach was doing it by ear. his linear rules were there, but any harmonic factors not covered by these rules were arrived at by listening. Everyone here has already admitted this fact.
    No one has admitted this alleged "fact." You have been asked several times to support your assertion that Bach rejected Rameau's theories. You haven't supported the assertion and you continue to make it. Once again, time to put up or shut up. Why shouldn't anyone reading this thread conclude that you are intentionally pushing misinformation?

    Your frogs make me shudder with intolerable loathing and I shall be miserable for the rest of my life remembering them.
    — Mikhail Bulgakov, The Fatal Eggs

    Originality is a device untalented people use to impress other untalented people and to protect themselves from talented people.
    — Basil Valentine

  17. Likes TalkingHead liked this post
  18. #193
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,994
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardBast View Post
    No one has admitted this alleged "fact." You have been asked several times to support your assertion that Bach rejected Rameau's theories. You haven't supported the assertion and you continue to make it. Once again, time to put up or shut up. Why shouldn't anyone reading this thread conclude that you are intentionally pushing misinformation?
    EdwardBast, you need to understand that I don't want to have to transcribe a bunch of text from a book just for your pleasure.
    "Dance, injun, dance!" (bang bang!)

    "Put up or shut up?"
    Do some work yourself. Look at the book yourself. You expect ME to do the work YOU should be doing?

    I've given the book (which should be in any musician's library).
    Even if I did give you all that work, you'd just disagree with it anyway.

    I'm not engaged in serious, committed discussion with you (except for cursory replies), because I think your main purpose is to invalidate me, not discuss ideas. In other words, I've already "given up" on you. This applies to anyone else whose main purpose is to invalidate.
    Last edited by millionrainbows; May-14-2020 at 14:25.

  19. #194
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,994
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeh375 View Post
    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.
    @EdwardBast:

    As you see here, mike375 is making assertions which hint at what I'm saying, but with no book sources or conceptual backup. It's just "assumed" that Bach was thinking harmonically, maybe on some intuitive level, which remains unexplained by him, or anyone else here.

    I've done better than that, years ago in my blogs. I demonstrated, with plenty of backup info, that much of harmonic thinking, such as the idea of chord function and root relations, is based on the ear. Here's the blog:

    https://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/...odel-part.html
    Last edited by millionrainbows; May-14-2020 at 14:26.

  20. #195
    Senior Member mikeh375's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,632
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    MR just try writing Bachian counterpoint without an awareness of harmonic function and progression. The concept of writing contrapuntally and harmonically at the same time is clear to any composer who has studied and practised it. The two disciplines are intertwined and feed off each other.

    I quote from Oldroyd's Technique and Spirit of Fugue...

    A great hindrance to contrapuntal work is poor harmonic basis. The power to choose chord progressions well - in a word, clear harmonic thinking - is the first essential. Weakness in this respect is too often an unsuspected cause of trouble....

    That's back-up of something I know anyway as does any composer worth their salt.
    Last edited by mikeh375; May-14-2020 at 14:27.
    New website and some new music......www.mikehewer.com

  21. Likes Woodduck, TalkingHead liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •