Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 155

Thread: Baroque "chord progressions"

  1. #61
    Senior Member millionrainbows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeh375 View Post
    MillionR, you completely and utterly misunderstood me - I'm not dissing you, I don't know you, let alone your compositional competence or what you do in music.
    I also agree with you about modern compound/bitonal etc. harmony as I often think in those terms (I used to play jazz guitar and all those chord designations are still with me and yes I too soloed over many a complicated sequence. There is no need to resolve anything academically and hasn't been for a long time. The old ways are a good foundation though in order to develop from, this I know to be true, even if it is not for everyone. Boil the fish, it's healthier.
    I disagree, and Pat Martino has spoken about the unspoken dominance of diatonic thinking and the tyranny of the keyboard: all the note names, notational system, and the very language of music itself, are derived from this diatonic key-system-based way of thinking. Chromatic thinking (in the truest sense) is an approach which clears the playing field.

    By necessity, we all use this language to communicate our musical ideas to other musicians; but there is no need to "pay homage" to it or its ideologues.
    Last edited by millionrainbows; Mar-25-2019 at 18:11.

  2. #62
    Senior Member mikeh375's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    301
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    MR, It's not about paying homage for me, it is about what learning technique inculcates into you as a developing creative artist. The polemics mean nothing to one who has the wits to assimilate the essence of technique and adapt it to their own proclivities. But getting to that stage is only achieved by learning in the first place. Those who have a voice will find themselves regardless as it is a natural bent. Keeping it simple in order for one to find their way at first is highly recommended, rather than giving them all 12 tones to dick around in without knowing how to make a statement cohere, write an extended phrase, develop motifs, score a passage effectively, acquire a sense of musicianship from which to spring forth, or achieve a sense of inevitability in the work. Giving an inexperienced composer an open atonal field to play in will inevitably result in unsatisfying, wandering, uncertain nonsense with no sense of purpose unless the composer knows themselves and how to achieve their ideas or has a wonderful talent. Remember too that Schoenberg's innovation was long considered by him and not decided upon lightly, he was after all a composer with a considerable (traditional) technical arsenal.

    The polemics you are engaging in don't actually mean much to a mature composer on a day to day basis as far as I'm concerned. What really matters is finding and presenting the idea and the more you know, the more options you have to support your fantasy. There are clearly many ways to learning composition (all valid imv by the way), but some come with more of a guarantee of good execution and lucid expression than others.

    We will therefore have to disagree on the point about training and I for one don't care at all for distinctions being made about a diatonic or chromatic paradigm, having left those concerns behind years ago. I'm not saying they are not without significance and I am enjoying the thread and the theoretical prowess on display is wondeful. It's just that on a day to day basis, they are of no concern and the distinctions do not impact practically nor aesthetically on a young mind that needs to learn imv, that mind will transcend any diatonic 'hedging in' if it is able to.

    I would like to ask you if you are a composer and if so, what are your credentials and what music do you write? (any links?, I'd love to hear some as you do make many valid points). This would give me a better understanding of you and help keep any antagonism in check. You can see my signature below if you want to know about me....if you want atonality, check out the preludes and fugues or the clarinet concerto, for expanded tonality, the violin sonata, or for more obvious diatonicism, the Partita Concordia. (page 3 on the site has scrolling scores).

    I also have to say that this would've been a more pleasant conversation for me if you would have at least acknowledged your misunderstanding seeing that I was at pains to correct it, but never mind, this is the internet after all eh?
    Last edited by mikeh375; Mar-26-2019 at 11:21.

  3. Likes Woodduck, Roger Knox liked this post
  4. #63
    Senior Member millionrainbows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeh375 View Post
    MR, It's not about paying homage for me, it is about what learning technique inculcates into you as a developing creative artist. The polemics mean nothing to one who has the wits to assimilate the essence of technique and adapt it to their own proclivities. But getting to that stage is only achieved by learning in the first place. Those who have a voice will find themselves regardless as it is a natural bent. Keeping it simple in order for one to find their way at first is highly recommended, rather than giving them all 12 tones to dick around in without knowing how to make a statement cohere, write an extended phrase, develop motifs, score a passage effectively, acquire a sense of musicianship from which to spring forth, or achieve a sense of inevitability in the work. Giving an inexperienced composer an open atonal field to play in will inevitably result in unsatisfying, wandering, uncertain nonsense with no sense of purpose unless the composer knows themselves and how to achieve their ideas or has a wonderful talent. Remember too that Schoenberg's innovation was long considered by him and not decided upon lightly, he was after all a composer with a considerable (traditional) technical arsenal.

    The polemics you are engaging in don't actually mean much to a mature composer on a day to day basis as far as I'm concerned. What really matters is finding and presenting the idea and the more you know, the more options you have to support your fantasy. There are clearly many ways to learning composition (all valid imv by the way), but some come with more of a guarantee of good execution and lucid expression than others.

    We will therefore have to disagree on the point about training and I for one don't care at all for distinctions being made about a diatonic or chromatic paradigm, having left those concerns behind years ago. I'm not saying they are not without significance and I am enjoying the thread and the theoretical prowess on display is wondeful. It's just that on a day to day basis, they are of no concern and the distinctions do not impact practically nor aesthetically on a young mind that needs to learn imv, that mind will transcend any diatonic 'hedging in' if it is able to.

    I would like to ask you if you are a composer and if so, what are your credentials and what music do you write? (any links?, I'd love to hear some as you do make many valid points). This would give me a better understanding of you and help keep any antagonism in check. You can see my signature below if you want to know about me....if you want atonality, check out the preludes and fugues or the clarinet concerto, for expanded tonality, the violin sonata, or for more obvious diatonicism, the Partita Concordia. (page 3 on the site has scrolling scores).

    I also have to say that this would've been a more pleasant conversation for me if you would have at least acknowledged your misunderstanding seeing that I was at pains to correct it, but never mind, this is the internet after all eh?
    Edit: This is the internet after all, eh?
    Last edited by millionrainbows; Mar-26-2019 at 21:39.
    "The way out is through the door. Why is it that no one will use this method?"
    -Confucious

    "In Spring! In the creation of art it must be as it is in Spring!" -Arnold Schoenberg

    "We only become what we are by the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made us." -Jean-Paul Sartre

    "I don't mind dying, as long as I can still breathe." ---Me

  5. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    1,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardBast View Post
    It depends on what part of the CP era, 250 years at least(!), is under discussion. In the Baroque Era and early Classical voice-leading is extremely important, with some configurations looking like diatonic 7th chords only occurring as the result of linear phenomena. Later the same "chords" occur with less strict, if any, linear justification.
    Yes, Edward, this post answers my question. The phrase we used in the 1960's-70's, "common practice harmony," is no longer valid. We see that for harmony it covered too broad a time period, approximately the 250 years of the CP era you mention. It ignored the distinction you have explained between Baroque/early Classical harmony and later, and was criticized by historical musicologists for ignoring the way Baroque/early Classical music was conceived, played, and heard at the time. As for more recent popular music and other musics, I'll get to that later.

  6. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    1,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Re popular music, to what does the acronym "CP" apply? Does it refer to the 20th-21st-century continuation, of course with modifications, of harmony or other practices from the "Common-Practice Era" of classical music referred to above (c. 1650-1900)?

  7. #66
    Senior Member mikeh375's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    301
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    Edit: This is the internet after all, eh?
    Sigh..ah well.

    Roger,

    I was using the acronym CP literally when referring to popular music, with no implications other than what the kids do as a matter of course, ie a common way of doing things - lazy of me I suppose, sorry for any confusion.
    Last edited by mikeh375; Mar-27-2019 at 15:36.

  8. Likes Roger Knox liked this post
  9. #67
    Senior Member EdwardBast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Knox View Post
    Yes, Edward, this post answers my question. The phrase we used in the 1960's-70's, "common practice harmony," is no longer valid. We see that for harmony it covered too broad a time period, approximately the 250 years of the CP era you mention. It ignored the distinction you have explained between Baroque/early Classical harmony and later, and was criticized by historical musicologists for ignoring the way Baroque/early Classical music was conceived, played, and heard at the time. As for more recent popular music and other musics, I'll get to that later.
    While you and Mikeh are here: I seem to remember reading (or hearing) that inversional equivalence was not part of Bach's thinking — that each inversion of a common triad or 7th chord was understood by him and many of his contemporaries as a separate entity from the others with a different function and requiring different treatment. Is this idea on your radar? Do you know the provenance of this idea, if it really is a thing?

    What greater comfort does time afford than the objects of terror re-encountered and their fraudulence exposed in the flash of reason?
    — William Gaddis, The Recognitions

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

  10. #68
    Senior Member millionrainbows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardBast View Post
    While you and Mikeh are here: I seem to remember reading (or hearing) that inversional equivalence was not part of Bach's thinking — that each inversion of a common triad or 7th chord was understood by him and many of his contemporaries as a separate entity from the others with a different function and requiring different treatment. Is this idea on your radar? Do you know the provenance of this idea, if it really is a thing?
    Is this a test?

    A chord in all its inversions has the same root function (not bass note), and the same quality (major/minor).

    Maybe in earlier times, it is treated differently...

    In some convoluted sense, it could be said that since figured bass notation recognizes each inversion separately from a bass note (not a root function), that they are not "equivalent" in that sense. Is this what is being gotten at, as some sort of test? Is this one of the academic hurdles one is expected to deal with?

    WIK: Figured-bass numerals express distinct intervals in a chord only as they relate to the bass note (not a root function). They make no reference to the key of the progression (unlike Roman-numeral harmonic analysis).

    Because that would be "harmonic thinking." Right? Is this the trick?
    Last edited by millionrainbows; Mar-27-2019 at 18:27.
    "The way out is through the door. Why is it that no one will use this method?"
    -Confucious

    "In Spring! In the creation of art it must be as it is in Spring!" -Arnold Schoenberg

    "We only become what we are by the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made us." -Jean-Paul Sartre

    "I don't mind dying, as long as I can still breathe." ---Me

  11. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    1,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardBast View Post
    While you and Mikeh are here: I seem to remember reading (or hearing) that inversional equivalence was not part of Bach's thinking — that each inversion of a common triad or 7th chord was understood by him and many of his contemporaries as a separate entity from the others with a different function and requiring different treatment. Is this idea on your radar? Do you know the provenance of this idea, if it really is a thing?
    Interesting question, it is on my radar. I don't remember if Jean-Philiippe Rameau (1683-1764) was the first to think of chord "roots," but he was the one who systematically developed the idea, including the equivalence of chord inversions to root position chords, in his Treatise on Harmony published in 1722. This book is beyond me! It is very complicated for modern readers, but there are explanations elsewhere, and the ideas themselves are not that difficult.

    As for J. S. Bach, being of the German school he wouldn't have thought in terms of chord roots or inversional equivalence. Nor did his son C. P. E. Bach (1714-88), whose Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments was cited in my learning years as the German opposite to Rameau's French treatise. (It is also much easier to read). Its translator into English, William Mitchell, was one of the early Schenkerian analysis promoters in the U.S.A.
    Last edited by Roger Knox; Mar-27-2019 at 18:27.

  12. #70
    Senior Member millionrainbows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Knox View Post
    Interesting question, it is on my radar. I don't remember if Jean-Philiippe Rameau (1683-1764) was the first to think of chord "roots," but he was the one who systematically developed the idea, including the equivalence of chord inversions to root position chords, in his Treatise on Harmony published in 1722. This book is beyond me! It is very complicated for modern readers, but there are explanations elsewhere, and the ideas themselves are not that difficult.

    As for J. S. Bach, being of the German school he wouldn't have thought in terms of chord roots or inversional equivalence. Nor did his son C. P. E. Bach (1714-88), whose Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments was cited in my learning years as the German opposite to Rameau's French treatise. (It is also much easier to read). Its translator into English, William Mitchell, was one of the early Schenkerian analysis promoters in the U.S.A.
    This was posted while I was composing mine; and it confirms what I suspected, that there are differences of approach in harmonic/root thinking and "figured bass thinking."

    I think these descriptions are rather misleading, and unclear (as I said above, convoluted). And if Rameau was thinking in roots, that's good enough for me. I've got the Rameau book, and I'm getting it out.

    I think figured bass is rather archaic unless one has an overview, and I think it's limited to that older style of music, and is really more of a "technique" which was used in lieu of harmonic/root thinking, which was not developed or accepted or used, whatever.
    Last edited by millionrainbows; Mar-27-2019 at 18:36.
    "The way out is through the door. Why is it that no one will use this method?"
    -Confucious

    "In Spring! In the creation of art it must be as it is in Spring!" -Arnold Schoenberg

    "We only become what we are by the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made us." -Jean-Paul Sartre

    "I don't mind dying, as long as I can still breathe." ---Me

  13. #71
    Senior Member EdwardBast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Knox View Post
    Interesting question, it is on my radar. I don't remember if Jean-Philiippe Rameau (1683-1764) was the first to think of chord "roots," but he was the one who systematically developed the idea, including the equivalence of chord inversions to root position chords, in his Treatise on Harmony published in 1722. This book is beyond me! It is very complicated for modern readers, but there are explanations elsewhere, and the ideas themselves are not that difficult.

    As for J. S. Bach, being of the German school he wouldn't have thought in terms of chord roots or inversional equivalence. Nor did his son C. P. E. Bach (1714-88), whose Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments was cited in my learning years as the German opposite to Rameau's French treatise. (It is also much easier to read). Its translator into English, William Mitchell, was one of the early Schenkerian analysis promoters in the U.S.A.
    Yeah, that's what I figured. The Bachs would likely have found Rameau out to lunch had they read him. I was thinking particularly of cases like the ii6/5 chord, which is an entity unto itself in Bach. The way inversions are given separate coverage in modern theory books, even in the Piston era, suggests that perhaps no one in classical theory ever completely accepted inversional equivalence, except for the sake of terminological convenience.
    Last edited by EdwardBast; Mar-27-2019 at 22:05.

    What greater comfort does time afford than the objects of terror re-encountered and their fraudulence exposed in the flash of reason?
    — William Gaddis, The Recognitions

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

  14. Likes Roger Knox liked this post
  15. #72
    Senior Member millionrainbows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardBast View Post
    Yeah, that's what I figured. The Bachs would likely have found Rameau out to lunch had they read him. I was thinking particularly of cases like the ii6/5 chord, which is an entity unto itself in Bach. The way inversions are given separate coverage in modern theory books,even in the Piston era, suggests that perhaps no one in classical theory ever completely accepted inversional equivalence.
    I don't think you can escape the "harmonic truth" that "a C major is a C major is a C major." (apologies to Gertrude Stein).

    This figured-bass thinking was perhaps a method which worked its way into the stylistic arsenal of composers, and yes, they had to be handled in specific ways, but the abstracted convenience of thinking harmonically is still in evidence to modern analysts. Figured-bass tends to get bogged-down in voice-leading details which ignore a purer, freer abstract distillation of harmonic considerations. And as harmony got more complex, what happened to figured bass thinking? It failed, or rejected more complex harmony. Figured bass is an ideological artifact of a bygone way of thinking. We have bigger, more complex fish to fry.

  16. #73
    Senior Member TalkingHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardBast View Post
    Yeah, that's what I figured. The Bachs would likely have found Rameau out to lunch had they read him. I was thinking particularly of cases like the ii6/5 chord, which is an entity unto itself in Bach. The way inversions are given separate coverage in modern theory books, even in the Piston era, suggests that perhaps no one in classical theory ever completely accepted inversional equivalence, except for the sake of terminological convenience.
    I see that you have really been reading through your Riemenschneider "371" bible!! Bach does indeed use the ii6/5 in nearly 90% of his final cadences.

  17. #74
    Senior Member millionrainbows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default

    " ...the separate bass line, with figures added above to indicate other chordal notes, shortly became "functional", as the sonorities became "harmonies", and music came to be seen in terms of a melody supported by chord progressions (homophony), rather than interlocking, equally important lines that are used in polyphony." WIK

    Riemenschneider "371" refers to an edition of the Bach chorales.

  18. #75
    Senior Member EdwardBast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TalkingHead View Post
    I see that you have really been reading through your Riemenschneider "371" bible!! Bach does indeed use the ii6/5 in nearly 90% of his final cadences.
    For years, actually. I'm a theorist, among other things.

    Do you have access to a statistical summary of harmonic usage in the chorales? I know it's been done but I forget by whom.

    What greater comfort does time afford than the objects of terror re-encountered and their fraudulence exposed in the flash of reason?
    — William Gaddis, The Recognitions

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

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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