Classical Music Forum banner

Baroque "chord progressions"

54K views 239 replies 18 participants last post by  millionrainbows 
#1 ·
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.
 
#3 · (Edited)
It makes perfect sense to analyze chord progressions in Baroque music! And yes, what you are observing, the sequential repetition of motives on different scale steps, is a mainstay of the style. The underlying progressions supporting these sequences tend to use lots of root motion by fifths, as in, for example, the progression:

iii - vi - ii - V - I - IV

Each root is a fifth above the next. Now if each repetition of a motive covers two chords in the sequence, the motive will sound like it is moving by step, as in iii-vi, ii-V, I-IV. The process of spinning out repeated motives in sequences is called Fortspinnung. Part of the reason it is so common in Baroque music is because of the Doctrine of Affections, which held, among other things, that each movement should have a single theme that expresses different shades of the same affect (feeling). So finding ways to extend and elaborate the same material was important. And circles of fifths always sound like they are driven as if by a natural force, like a kind of musical gravity.

In addition to that, how does Bach's music generate such an emotional response? It can't be me just me. Is there a music-theorical explanation?
There isn't going to be a simple explanation for any complex aesthetic effect such as this. But Baroque music theory was heavily influenced by classical rhetorical theory, and under this way of thinking, the composer's role was often compared to that of an orator, whose job was to move an audience to feel one overriding emotion. This is where the Doctrine of Affections comes from. More specifically, there were whole inventories of musical figures based on rhetorical figures that added emotional inflection.
 
#4 ·
I know the concept of chord progression is not applicable in the period of the Baroque.
That's correct. If it was applicable, we'd have Bach using what could be called major seventh chords. You said "chord progression," not "CP chord progression."
 
#5 ·
No, it's not correct. Of course the concept of chord progression applies to the Baroque Era. It's just that certain dissonant tones, as in MRs example of a major 7th, weren't considered harmonic tones at the time. They were understood as linear phenomena. Later on such dissonant tones came to be interpreted as chord tones.
 
#7 ·
I know the concept of chord progression is not applicable in the period of the Baroque.
I'm a bit baffled by this. Does anyone actually think that composers before the Classical period did not hear and conceive music in terms of harmonic progression? To think that they didn't, wouldn't we have to believe that they achieved a satisfactory succession of harmonies not consciously and intentionally but incidentally, solely through the application of rules governing the movement of contrapuntal melodic lines?

I can't see how anyone able to perceive the precisely articulated tonal plan of a Bach prelude or a Handel aria could think that that plan was a sort of lucky accident, and that it can't be analyzed in terms of chord progression. Nothing in the potential movement of melodic lines will tell a composer how to return to the A section of a da capo aria after he's written a B section in the relative minor, or - crucially - give him a reason for doing so. If a composer wants to create a piece that coheres in time - that has shape and meaning as an entity - he needs a sense of harmonic movement, as well as a grasp of the principles of counterpoint, to tell him where his melodic lines need to go.

Is there a tradition of theoretical analysis that dichotomizes harmonic and contrapuntal thinking to the degree suggested by the OP's query?
 
#8 · (Edited)
I'm a bit baffled by this. Does anyone actually think that composers before the Classical period did not hear and conceive music in terms of harmonic progression?
No, except in certain cases of non-harmonic tones such as a major seventh chord, which was not considered to be a chord.
 
#13 ·
Yes, academically, but I question this CP concept:
"notes understood to be non-chord tones"

For instance, in the key of C major, the notes B and F, precisely the culprits I pointed out earlier.

In CP, there is no C major seventh chord. It's not recognized as a chord by convention; yet, we all know it exists as a chord. This shows how inflexible orthodox CP theory is. It also exposes the "non-harmonic" aspects of the C major scale. I'm interested in what is possible musically, not conventions.
 
#14 ·
Here is my reply to the OP. Disclaimer: I'm of "senior age." My studies and teaching in the relevant fields were in the "70's and '80's, before moving to a different area of music. The material below is also taught to students younger than university age, at conservatories or privately).

I'm glad you mentioned things you've identified accurately through listening. Especially "building tension upward with the key, while descending melodically," because that is a feeling response coupled with a valid insight. It implies principles of gradual change and of contrast that have practical and artistic implications.

And now to music theory and history, pedagogical application: the applicability to the Baroque period of the concept of chord progression. For my undergraduate theory teaching as a neophyte T.A., the very general rule of thumb was to use Roman numerals (e.g. I, IV, V) from 1680 CE onward. These Roman numerals are used in functional harmony. They specify the relation of a chord to a key and are used to name chord progressions. If the above is followed, we see that the identified change happens within the Baroque period. But historically, Roman numerals came along much later than 1680. (Figured bass, that specifies the relation of upper notes to the bass note, was used in practice throughout the Baroque.)
IMO, TalkClassical needs musicians with your ears and insight and I hope you'll continue to post!
 
#21 · (Edited)
There are no major 7th chords in Bach (or Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schubert, Brahms). 7th above the root is a non-chord tone that always resolves to a chord tone. Those of you who think otherwise do not understand dissonance and its treatment, in theory or practice. Others in this thread have tried to explain it to you but apparently some of you still don't get it.

If you can show me one instance of a major 7th in Bach that is not treated as a dissonance, that is to say that it doesn't resolve to a consonance, I will fully repent.

Now that I mention it, I think this thread has gone about as far as it can without examples. Show me some. I double dog dare you;)
 
#22 · (Edited)
There are no major 7th chords in Bach (or Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schubert, Brahms). 7th above the root is a non-chord tone that always resolves to a chord tone. Those of you who think otherwise do not understand dissonance and its treatment, in theory or practice. Others in this thread have tried to explain it to you but apparently some of you still don't get it.

If you can show me one instance of a major 7th in Bach that is not treated as a dissonance, that is to say that it doesn't resolve to a consonance, I will fully repent.

Now that I mention it, I think this thread has gone about as far as it can without examples. Show me some. I double dog dare you;)
A major 7th need not always resolve to a consonance in CP. If the note which is the seventh is held through the chord that follows, it may instead become a dissonant note in that chord as well. To illustrate: in the key of C, hold E in the top voice as a melody note over the tonic chord (l). Progress to lV (producing a major 7th), then to V7, still keeping the E in the melody, then resolve it to D and cadence on l. A similar case: over the tonic chord in C, let the melody descend from C to B or leap up from G to B (producing a major 7th), change the chord under it to iV, then resolve the dissonant B to A before cadencing on l, either directly or through V. In both cases the dissonant melody note producing the major seventh becomes the dissonant note in another chord.

What can probably be said is that a major 7th is never perceived as a consonance, and is never (to my knowledge) introduced except as a function of melodic movement, before the later 19th century. But as I pointed out in post #20, Wagner used an unprepared major 7th in 1859, and for all I know Liszt may have done so before him.

EDIT: See post #24 below.
 
#27 ·
He dares to disagree? Yep, I have to agree with EdwardBast on this.

As an added note, I find Walter Piston's view of (in C major) the seventh degree as either melodic (VII-I) or harmonic (V-I) as very revealing;

"The seventh degree, leading-tone, for all its importance a an indicator of the tonic through its melodic tendency, has not been treated as a basic structural factor in tonality. It remains a significant melodic tone, common to both modes. It is seldom regarded as a generator of harmony, but is usually absorbed into the dominant chord. The progression, leading-tone to tonic, may be described as melodically VII-I and harmonically V-I."

"It follows that the tonal structure of music consists mainly of harmonies with tonal degrees as roots (I,IV,V, and II), with the modal degree chords (III and VI) used for variety." -Walter Piston, Harmony, p. 33-34

So if VII can't be used as a tonic root, as a generator of harmony, it reinforces the view of B-D-F-A as in incomplete dominant ninth with its (assumed) root on G.

For me, this brings in to question whether any diminished seventh chord can be considered as a tonic-root generator of tonality, unless it is assumed to be an incomplete V7 or dominant ninth chord.
 
#30 · (Edited)
"Maybe he should have added more requirements: the 7th of the chord can't be suspended from the previous bar, resolution to a consonance need not happen in the next chord but may be delayed through passing chords, etc."

In the case of the Bach Prelude, it's a non-harmonic tone, not a component of a chord.

"It doesn't make sense to me to say that a clearly audible 7th chord is not "really" a 7th chord merely because the 7th in it is a component of a melodic line moving through the measure."

If the seventh is not considered and
treated as a component of the chord, it's a non-harmonic tone. Major seventh chords do not exist in CP tonality. In CP tonal thinking, the note on vii must be resolved to I, or be considered as a component of a V chord in a V-I.

You haven't been listening to jazz, have you?
:lol:
 
#38 ·
I'm late responding, but I was in fact thinking of that very part of the first prelude in WTC Book 1.

I agree fully with Woodduck's take on the role of music theory here.

Perhaps more controversially, I think the same idea is applicable to Wagner and the dissolution of tonality. I've started to write a post about that a couple times and may yet finish it in the future.
 
#39 · (Edited)
"I think I let my discomfort with using harmonic explanations when linear explanations are available get the better of me."

Yes, your arms must be sore from trying to stuff that horse into a suitcase.

I've got the Kalmus, the light blue one.
 
#41 ·
In the Bach Prelude No. 1, there's a B-C-E-G-C which occurs early on, before the F chord.

 
#42 ·
In measure 8 of prelude 1 of WTC1 the B in the bass is a suspension that resolves down to A with the change of harmony from C major in m.8 to Am7 in m.9. Dissonances resolving at the change of harmony is common in CP music.

The B in the bass is treated as a dissonance, a suspension, a purely linear event, not as a chord tone. It also sounds, quite obviously, like a suspension.

Any more examples?

P.S. Bach never wrote a maj7 chord. Ever.
 
#44 ·
Ok, go ahead and think what you want to, instead of what's right.
 
#45 ·
I don't think there's any disagreement among us about the harmonic and contrapuntal origin and function of these maj7 chords in Bach. We'd can all see what's happening in the music (can't we?). The disagreement is in the use of the term "chord," which has more than one usage. This strikes me as a meaningless dispute.

It's obvious that Bach doesn't land on seventh chords out of the blue, just for the "color" of it, as happened in the 19th and 20th centuries. But it's interesting to observe what he does with them when they occur. In measure 21 of the WTC first prelude, where the melodic element is more implied than defined, the color of the chord really takes center stage, all the more so because it resolves into a dim7. Of course Bach was not averse to interesting harmonic effects, as heard in some of the extraordinary, expressive chromatic passages in many of his works (the Goldberg Variations and the "Crucifixus" from the B minor Mass come to mind).
 
#49 ·
Here's an example of a modern-day usage of a major seventh chord, as a chord, to counter Bach's use of it. A simple, ubiquitous example which I'm sure everyone has heard.

 
#51 · (Edited)
A Misunderstanding

Popular music, jazz harmony, composition, 20th-21st century developments, music technology and many other aspects of music are fascinating to me, and I appreciate the responses and the variety of interests and accomplishments they represent.

I taught music theory and composition at the undergraduate university level, up to the end of the 1980's. My question should have been much more specific: "What is understood in 2019 music teaching as the common-practice harmony of western classical music that was composed in c. the 18th-19th centuries?" That is what the term meant when I was studying harmony in the late 1960's-1970's. (We didn't use the abbreviation CP then.)

I'm referring to harmony textbooks (they do contain examples of great classical composers' music), and not specific composers or works, in order to make a broad comparison. In 2019, do we still take common-practice harmony to be harmony of the 18th and 19th centuries? If so, which harmony are we referring to, taking as reference points these two books extensively used in North America, or their equivalents and successors?

1. Piston's French-derived Harmony or,
2. Aldwell and Schachter's Schenker-influenced Harmony and Voice-Leading.

I know there are other approaches, but I haven't kept with post-1990 developments, textbooks or teaching in music theory. Here, my purpose is to identify the source of conflicts that came up in this particular thread (that now seem to have abated, to be sure).

My hunch is that they come from differences in when and where people posting here studied music theory, and especially whether they used French-derived books like Piston's, or Schenker-influenced ones like Aldwell and Schachter's.

Whether or not we agree on this I feel we can learn from each other. Everyone has different areas of knowledge, and I do not want my above comments to imply rancor against anyone, or assumed superiority, or anything else, except that I feel some clarity has been lacking in this thread.
 
#54 ·
Hm, what you teach in schools and early university courses is simplifications, distortions and anachronisms. The main point of music theory education is to develop practical skills ( and musicianship), not to teach some idealised theories.

We may do a statistical analysis on forgotten, but mediocre (not too original) composer styles in a chosen age and get an idea what the common practice was. Famous composers are not that good models, because many of them have too individual style. (We can see such analysis done usually on Bach and Mozart works - search academic university papers databases - and there are discrepancies between theory and practice in resolutions of dissonances and voice leading, which, of course, can be expected, because music is art form, not something that can be reduced to set of rules. Following blindly music theory book instructions will always lead to boring and mechanical end product.)

It is also disappointing that almost (I have seen only in English that doesn't do this and it's out of print, translation from German) every music theory book that is useful for teaching - not just advanced, dry theory- omits details on historical tunings. I'm pretty sure that many composers from the past would have experimented with more "progressive or radical" modulations and chords, if they weren't out of tune in the optimized for meantone gamuts (basically diatonic scale; meantone extensions have commas that make romantic chord progression - think Liszt - to require enharmonic shifts and splitted keys on keyboards, so you need more advanced keyboards or unfretted string instruments) in the historical tunings.

The best books on common practice are these that basically teach historical methods. These are very good, imo:

"The Art of Accompaniment from a Thorough-Bass: As Practiced in the XVII and XVIII Centuries" (2 volumes) - Arnold (Bach, Vivaldi etc lovers may find this one interesting,)

"Music in the Galant Style" - Gjerdingen (Mozart fans will love this)
 
#55 · (Edited)
...but there are certain ways of thinking which are codified into rules, and do not change, such as parallel fifths, resolving dissonance, what dissonance is, and NO MAJOR SEVENTH CHORDS!

It sounds like there is a resistance to seeing academic theory as old-fashioned, outdated, and inflexible. Perhaps this is because it has been institutionalized into the dominant ideology.

I urge all theorists to escape from the fold and explore new methods of music theory, which dare to go outside the box into more chromatic, less diatonic territory.
 
#57 ·
NO MAJOR SEVENTH CHORDS!
There is a whole chapter on them in the "Art of ..." If you don't believe in this book (which is basically compilation), check C.P.E. Bach talking about major sevenths ( I can't understand why do you think there was no such thing as theoretical concept back then):

free download:
https://imslp.org/wiki/Versuch_über...elen,_H.868,_870_(Bach,_Carl_Philipp_Emanuel)

English translation:
https://www.amazon.com/Essay-True-Playing-Keyboard-Instruments/dp/0393097161

Any practice is just a style: if you follow certain rules, you will sound in a particular way. I don't think that there is right and wrong in music.
 
#56 ·
The point about learning theory (especially the old fashioned stuff) as a composer has not really been touched on and might be worth mentioning. When one learns from species counterpoint all the way through to atonality, the experience of handling notes via exercises is also giving a composer insight into his own aesthetics. A composer will find natural affinities with certain ways of doing things and will also probably discard techniques deemed unappealing. This process of exposure to, practice of (especially) and finding (developing) an instinctive affinity when choosing preferred techniques is of paramount importance during formative years and in this regard, the value of academic theory and earlier esoteric theory/practice can't be overstated imv. Academic learning for a composer is akin to an instrumentalist learning scales and arpeggios - once mastered, one can then concentrate on the music.

Obviously one also needs to balance the insights gleaned from tradition with newer techniques too for a fully rounded and informed approach to finding one's own voice, but in my opinion newer techniques are best sought out after one has a good grasp of tradition. The reason I say this is because a chromatic field used without any control could be construed as charlatanism - anybody can create a cacophony. To create a cogent expression is to know yourself and to know yourself requires knowledge of what is possible and that is what theory can give you.
 
#59 · (Edited)
...Obviously one also needs to balance the insights gleaned from tradition with newer techniques too for a fully rounded and informed approach to finding one's own voice, but in my opinion newer techniques are best sought out after one has a good grasp of tradition. The reason I say this is because a chromatic field used without any control could be construed as charlatanism - anybody can create a cacophony. To create a cogent expression is to know yourself and to know yourself requires knowledge of what is possible and that is what theory can give you.
I understand the old ways well enough to know an archaic concept of harmony when I see it. In CP theory, there are many chords which don't exist, and I use them as chord changes to solo over. Such as E minor 9 to Eb Maj 13 b5 (or as a polychord F Major over Eb Maj) to D Maj 13 b5 etc. This is modern harmonic thinking which has no need to "resolve" any of these chord tones contrapuntally. It's a whole different way of thinking.
It's touching that you pay homage to the past (while dissing me as a possible charlatan), but I've moved on, and have bigger fish to fry.
 
#62 · (Edited)
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?
 
#63 · (Edited)
Edit: This is the internet after all, eh?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top