-
It is definitely worth it, it is a compilation of partimento rules. You get the rule of the octave in all positions, suspensions, cadences and bass movement. Very complete. Its my favorite.
Originally Posted by christianm77
Good vid! I try to avoid first position and open strings since playing around this stuff makes it so easy to modulate if you use the whole fingerboard. Makes it easier also to get the soprano going.
-
08-15-2016 12:01 PM
-
I didn't say it was irrelevant, merely that it is one way of looking at things. It seems the musical world has moved on from that approach. More importantly, at this stage of my life and playing, it's a diversion, not a destination. Originally Posted by christianm77
I don't think Ted Greene thought that way with his baroque improvisations, but maybe he did. Do you know?
Did you look at the book I linked to earlier? I think it's perfect...but maybe it's flawed. I'd be interested in your opinion. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
I think Greene had a pretty good grasp of classical harmony, I might be wrong, but judging from interviews with him. Originally Posted by 4thstuning
But y'know intervals are intervals. A 6 3 chord is a bass with a diatonic sixth and a 3rd on top, abbreviated to 6 in the notation.
It's not rocket science. The problem comes from whether or not you have the diatonic scales really well mapped out. If you tune in 4ths, I reckon that would not be such a massive hurdle, actually. (Also you need to able to read bass clef.)
In terms of the book - I'm not terribly interested in modern analyses of the repertoire.
Why? The guys who wrote music back in the 18th century were working musicians with deadlines and heavy workloads. They weren't on the public payroll, and they had to smash the stuff out to put food on the table. Few modern composers have anything like the prolific outputs of even the most obscure professional 18th century composers. You are looking at - as Gjerdingen puts it - something very much like a modern studio musician.
The partimenti stuff appeals to me because I want to get an insight into how those guys actually learned, not how a modern guy thinks. Obviously the species counterpoint stuff is well known, but the day to day craft of composition seems to have been based on something a great deal more streamlined.
You have to understand diatonic intervals to get anywhere with species counterpoint. So figured bass is naturally part of that whole thought system. Applying Roman Numeral notation to say the rule of octaves seems IMO to miss the entire point. Figured bass gives you the voice leading.
BTW - everyone I know who is trained in classical trained composition I know understands figured bass. I would say if you have any interest in classical theory ancient or modern this is a requirement for comprehension. Cadential 6 4 chords, 7-6 suspensions, parallel 6 3's and so on.Last edited by christianm77; 08-15-2016 at 05:10 PM.
-
He had a very good understanding of it as he improvised in that style beautifully. That said, being a big Ted Greene fan, I never heard or read of him thinking in the fashion you and VKat are describing. Nothing wrong with it, but I just don't think thought in those terms and would need evidence showing he did before I change my mind. Originally Posted by christianm77
Originally Posted by christianm77
Yep, but I'm not interested in the partimento/figured bass system. I think there are better ways to go about things. Originally Posted by christianm77
I wasn't asking if you would approach the music that way - it's clear you don't. I merely wanted to know if you or VKat thought the book presented more problems than solutions. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
I dunno. Have you been able to develop a system from Greene's approach? If not, we are looking for clues of one kind or another.He had a very good understanding of it as he improvised in that style beautifully. That said, being a big Ted Greene fan, I never heard or read of him thinking in the fashion you and VKat are describing. Nothing wrong with it, but I just don't think thought in those terms and would need evidence showing he did before I change my mind.
I'm pretty sure that Ted Greene knew his diatonic intervals. The way Bach etc thought AFAIK was intervallic. Figured bass is just a way of writing intervals above a bass line. Even if Ted Greene never looked at a figured bassline in his life, if he knew his intervals, he would have picked it up quick. So that side of it is not so terribly important - the figured bass thing is just notation.
Formulae like 7-6 pop up a lot in Ted's Bach pastiches and of course the original music. I'm pretty certain Greene would have known what a 7-6 was.
Of course, partimenti was the realisation of unfigured basses - which is where you have to know your shit and basically - LICKS!
Figures are written into modern editions continuo parts so that non specialists can play them. AFAIK Bach was quite into figuring things though. Anyway....
Have you listened to the Gjerdingen podcast? I don't want to repeat his arguments, but his research indicates that partimenti have an influence that reaches a lot further that just 18th century music, and you can check out what he has to say without knowing any figured bass. ;-)Yep, but I'm not interested in the partimento/figured bass system. I think there are better ways to go about things.
The advantage of the partimenti system is that it gives you a lot of useful formulae with the counterpoint 'baked in' that appeals because - LICKS!
Haven't read it, probably won't so don't really have an opinion on that one... Vkat?I wasn't asking if you would approach the music that way - it's clear you don't. I merely wanted to know if you or VKat thought the book presented more problems than solutions.
-
What I'm able to emulate from Greene are his jazz harmonic approaches, sort of like what Tim Lerch does. I haven't gone Greene-baroque though. Originally Posted by christianm77
Most people who can chord spell know their intervals. Most jazz players think in intervals. But this misses the point, there's more than one way to approach things. Originally Posted by christianm77
Again, he analyzed and copied. That doesn't mean he traveled the same path as the original composers. Originally Posted by christianm77
I haven't listened to the Gjerdingen podcast, no links were provided. Originally Posted by christianm77
Amazon shows some of the pages from the book. That's what impels me to purchase it. Just check the "See Inside" button and see for yourself. But if you're not interested, that's fine too. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
In the spirit of compromise, here is how I would harmonise a minor scale using the rule of the octave - a simple starting point for Baroque harmony - in modern notation. One thing I find awkward about modern notation is the way inversions are indicated:
Am G#o/B Am/C G#o/D E D/F# E/G# Am
Am Em/G Dm/F E E/D Am/C G#o/B Am
G#o refers to diminished triad, not a dim 7.
You can see how much complexity there is, even though we are essentially dealing with i iv v harmony. Notice also the way we use the minor scales going up and down. This is very textbook stuff - as Greene points out, Bach broke the rules in terms of scales.
---- MORE STUFF ----
Am Em/G F7(no 5) E E/D Am/C G#o/B Am
Is a variation that puts me in mind of Mozart.
As a side note - we see here the F7 E7 Am, a progression common in jazz. The F7 here has no fifth.
In figured bass it would be:
(key = no sharps/flats)
A B6 C6 D6 E F#6 G#6 A
A G6 F6 E D4/2C6 B6 A
You have to admit - that looks a lot cleaner. There's some shorthand here.
6 indicates 6 3. Nothing indicates 5 3 in modern editions, although in older editions musicians were assumed not to be stupid and play 6 3's judiciously. 4/2 is an abbreviation for 6 4 2.
Notice there is no 5 3 (root position triad) on degree IV. This is to stop the possiblity of consecutive 5ths between IV and V, and I have to say, it sounds a lot prettier. If we move towards IV in the music (most likely using a A7 chord) we would use a Dm chord here.
Here is the Mozart-ish variation. The F is a sharp or augmented sixth chord.:
A G6 F #6 E D4/2C6 B6 A
Notice that there are only two fifths in the whole thing which sidesteps the problem of consecutive fifths in the voice leading, provided we don't do any foolish doubling. So, beginners rules are - never double the third or seventh in voicings (easiest in three voices.) Bach may double thirds. He is allowed, you are not.
If you play Fmaj7 Dm/F E it sounds very nice - this is the 7-6 resolution (F7-6 in figured bass)
This is good fun to mess around with.
If the bass jumps by leap (i.e. a backcyckling progression like Autumn Leaves) you can have 5 3 (root position chords) without worrying so much. 7-6 resolutions in Autumn Leaves could look like this:
Cm7 Ao/C Bbmaj7 Gm/Bb Am7b5 G#o/A Gm
Close to
Cm7 Cm6 Bbmaj7 Bb6 Am7b5 Ao7 Gm (7-6 right?)
A common swing era comping cliche.
In figured bass
(key = two flats)
C7-6 Bb7-6 A7-#6 G
(G is a 5 - 3. The #6 note on A (F#) resolves to the G by contrary motion with the bass. If you are feeling cheeky you can use a suspension - F#o/A Gmin(maj7) Gmin in modern chords.
Again, you can see how awkward modern notation it is. It really is a pain for this stuff.Last edited by christianm77; 08-15-2016 at 07:09 PM.
-
How many ways are there to conceptualise intervals? It doesn't matter whether you think pre or post functional harmony, if you play a consecutive fifth, well we know what happens, right? Originally Posted by 4thstuning
So just to take that super obvious example, you have to know what intervals are, and how to prepare and avoid certain intervals in order to remain within the style. All those tiresome rules about preparing dissonances and avoiding consecutives.
(BTW I would say Greene is actually stretching the style harmonically to my ears, but I kind of feel he wants to. He's not an academic after all.)
Ted Greene certainly knew about this stuff. He talks about how parallel fifths are now back in fashion in one of his workshops for instance.
The difference? In general counterpoint and chorale harmony is studied for purely academic purposes by bored classical musicians who will never write a note.
But, I daresay, someone like Greene is coming at it from the point of view of being a jazz musician - and looking for practical licks. Say - you can play first inversion chords up and down the scale. 7-6 is cool. 4-3 is cool. And so on.
So you don't have to do mental algebra everytime you play a note.
This is very much like how the partimenti system worked - practical. Hands on. Not academic. That's why its being recommended.
As what was in Ted Greene's head is sadly lost to us except in his students (can any of those cats improvise Bach do you know? That would have to be a point of call....)
Anyway, here is Gjerdingen podcast. Super interesting IMO. Baroque & classical music is about more than avoiding breaking the rules - it's about knowing the LICKS :-)
https://www.artofcomposing.com/aoc-0...ert-gjerdingen
This is brand new research (well past 10-20 years.) Had Greene lived to find out about this stuff, I reckon he would have been into it.Last edited by christianm77; 08-15-2016 at 07:31 PM.
-
That Art of Partimento book is heavy.
I think it makes a great companion volume to Music in the Galant Style.
-
What I wanted to add to my previous post for clarification of my thoughts is below.
It's interesting to note that once looked at Bach's works at a certain angle a theorists may make a conclusion that since Bach's music is based on the Tonal idiom it is essentially concieved in the vertical "chordal" sense. Indeed it's one _partially_ valid way to look at it. However it would be a fatal mistake to overlook the horizontal relationships of the voices in the first place.
Still it would be the most correct way to focus first on the horizontal "voice leading" of that music.
If you go back in history you will certainly find that the Modal counterpoint came before the Tonal idiom (whether it be in predominantly the counterpoint or otherwise "chordal" favour). Monody (a single line music) came even before counterpoint which is quite logical. Here we of course talking in terms of some harmony even if it's only two lines with "notes against notes".
The Jazzers who will try to replicate the Baroque period music will most likely tend to approach the in-the-style improvisation with the harmonic implications in mind and what is more important with the Tonal Harmony implications. The good thing is that a a good jazzer will certainly be familiar with "smooth" voice leading and will tend to implement it in his "Baroque" improvisations.
However here there is one possible fault: "smooth Jazzy" voice leading is not the same as "idiomatic voice leading" in Baroque style. Still it is not surprisingly that the voice leading in the Baroque _would be_ vertical "chordal" way of thinking is based entirely on the idiomatic music _practice_ that came before it. And that practice is of course Modal counterpoint that with time transformated into what is known as "Tonal Counterpoint" if we believe that the Tonal Music Theory describes a valid way of organizing a piece of music.
It is then probably more correctly to talk of the "Neo-Baroque" style improvisation vs "True Baroque" style improvisation depending on the approach of an improvisor on a deeper level of idiomatic techniques.
I see here R.Gjerdingen and G.Sanguinetty were mentioned above as important theorists (and of course brilliant practitioners of the style, though it's mostly in the Galant idiom which is still quite close to Baroque).
That's great!
If you read Gjerdingen you will realize he quite often emphasizes one important idea: The inernalised hearing of the Galant music style was quickly forgotten when the Common Practice development went on to the Classical and then on to Romantic periods. He suggests (or maybe even proves depending on your degree of trust) that idiomatic hearing of the period Music was so strong that people envolved if only on the listening level were well aware of what idiomatic music structures (what he calls Schemata and that term is now universally accepted) were supposed to follow in the course of a music composition.
All that listeners had to do was only to evaluate the artistic skills of the composers (who were great improvisors at the same time) in stringing together and elaborating the common Schemata that were so familiar that no experienced listener would make a mistake correctly identifying those structures even if they were heavily disguised in the layers of melodic and rhythmic figurations.
When the Tonal Music Theory overcame the counterpoint thinking in composition and harmony and counterpoint were devided into two separate entities the art that made possible to create great Baroque masterpieces was lost.
What used to take years to study the skill later was thought to become widely accessible due to discovery of the Tonal Music Theory.
What is it all about? Here:
If you think of Bach's music you of course admit that he is primarily recognized as a master of counterpoint (the epitome of his works being fugues of course), not the master of "harmonic progressions in the Tonal Music idiom". The latter was simply a result of the vertical organization of the the horizontal contrapuntal pracice that with time crystallized into familiar harmonic idioms.
Simply put, in a wide sense _voice leading_ came centuries before the _Theory of the Tonal Harmony_. Please also note the key word here: _Theory_ - and it's just that!
As such the approach to the "Baroque improvisation" exclusively with the Tonal Harmony idiom in mind will at best result in the "Neo-Baroque improvisation" and the degree of success of the improvisor in approaching the "True Baroque improvisation" will entirely depend on his abilities to internalise the music of the great masters of the period.
Otherwise the "Neo-Baroque" improvisation style (whatever it is thought of) is quite accessible.
I think it's much much more difficult skill than pouring out good Jazz voice leading progressions which I believe is in itself a skill that can be mastered by minority. That's how far we are from the "true art" of the period I belive.
I only wrote the above to suggest that we should call the things with their proper names and not to pretend that we can easily replicate the things that are immensly difficult.
Think of the "tourist Flamenco" for comparison. It only takes a few chords to prove to the uninitiated you are a Flamenco master. And here Gjerdingen comes to mind with his notion of the "idiomatic listening experience".
- "Flamenco? - You try to convince me you play Flamenco?" - "That BS!" - and that would be an evaluation of some Spanish Joe
-
Well as you've read Gjerdingen I won't go over that stuff too much - just to say that at least in his podcast he was pretty disparaging of the 19th century classification of musical eras as Baroque and Classical - apparently musicologists don't tend to use these distinctions nowadays - it's all a lot more fluid. Scarlatti-->Durante-->Pergolesi-->Vivaldi-->J.C.Bach-->Haydn-->Mozart-->early Beethoven and Schubert-->even the Bel Canto tradition of Rossini and Bellini - it's not cut and dried, all part of a continuum. Originally Posted by VKat
What I wanted to add to my previous post for clarification of my thoughts is below.
It's interesting to note that once looked at Bach's works at a certain angle a theorists may make a conclusion that since Bach's music is based on the Tonal idiom it is essentially concieved in the vertical "chordal" sense. Indeed it's one _partially_ valid way to look at it. However it would be a fatal mistake to overlook the horizontal relationships of the voices in the first place.
Still it would be the most correct way to focus first on the horizontal "voice leading" of that music.
If you go back in history you will certainly find that the Modal counterpoint came before the Tonal idiom (whether it be in predominantly the counterpoint or otherwise "chordal" favour). Monody (a single line music) came even before counterpoint which is quite logical. Here we of course talking in terms of some harmony even if it's only two lines with "notes against notes".
The Jazzers who will try to replicate the Baroque period music will most likely tend to approach the in-the-style improvisation with the harmonic implications in mind and what is more important with the Tonal Harmony implications. The good thing is that a a good jazzer will certainly be familiar with "smooth" voice leading and will tend to implement it in his "Baroque" improvisations.
However here there is one possible fault: "smooth Jazzy" voice leading is not the same as "idiomatic voice leading" in Baroque style. Still it is not surprisingly that the voice leading in the Baroque _would be_ vertical "chordal" way of thinking is based entirely on the idiomatic music _practice_ that came before it. And that practice is of course Modal counterpoint that with time transformated into what is known as "Tonal Counterpoint" if we believe that the Tonal Music Theory describes a valid way of organizing a piece of music.
It is then probably more correctly to talk of the "Neo-Baroque" style improvisation vs "True Baroque" style improvisation depending on the approach of an improvisor on a deeper level of idiomatic techniques.
I see here R.Gjerdingen and G.Sanguinetty were mentioned above as important theorists (and of course brilliant practitioners of the style, though it's mostly in the Galant idiom which is still quite close to Baroque).
That's great!
If you read Gjerdingen you will realize he quite often emphasizes one important idea: The inernalised hearing of the Galant music style was quickly forgotten when the Common Practice development went on to the Classical and then on to Romantic periods. He suggests (or maybe even proves depending on your degree of trust) that idiomatic hearing of the period Music was so strong that people envolved if only on the listening level were well aware of what idiomatic music structures (what he calls Schemata and that term is now universally accepted) were supposed to follow in the course of a music composition.
All that listeners had to do was only to evaluate the artistic skills of the composers (who were great improvisors at the same time) in stringing together and elaborating the common Schemata that were so familiar that no experienced listener would make a mistake correctly identifying those structures even if they were heavily disguised in the layers of melodic and rhythmic figurations.
When the Tonal Music Theory overcame the counterpoint thinking in composition and harmony and counterpoint were devided into two separate entities the art that made possible to create great Baroque masterpieces was lost.
What used to take years to study the skill later was thought to become widely accessible due to discovery of the Tonal Music Theory.
What is it all about? Here:
If you think of Bach's music you of course admit that he is primarily recognized as a master of counterpoint (the epitome of his works being fugues of course), not the master of "harmonic progressions in the Tonal Music idiom". The latter was simply a result of the vertical organization of the the horizontal contrapuntal pracice that with time crystallized into familiar harmonic idioms.
Simply put, in a wide sense _voice leading_ came centuries before the _Theory of the Tonal Harmony_. Please also note the key word here: _Theory_ - and it's just that!
As such the approach to the "Baroque improvisation" exclusively with the Tonal Harmony idiom in mind will at best result in the "Neo-Baroque improvisation" and the degree of success of the improvisor in approaching the "True Baroque improvisation" will entirely depend on his abilities to internalise the music of the great masters of the period.
Otherwise the "Neo-Baroque" improvisation style (whatever it is thought of) is quite accessible.
I think it's much much more difficult skill than pouring out good Jazz voice leading progressions which I believe is in itself a skill that can be mastered by minority. That's how far we are from the "true art" of the period I belive.
I only wrote the above to suggest that we should call the things with their proper names and not to pretend that we can easily replicate the things that are immensly difficult.
Think of the "tourist Flamenco" for comparison. It only takes a few chords to prove to the uninitiated you are a Flamenco master. And here Gjerdingen comes to mind with his notion of the "idiomatic listening experience".
- "Flamenco? - You try to convince me you play Flamenco?" - "That BS!" - and that would be an evaluation of some Spanish Joe
I think he covers the flighty tides of musical fashion quite well in his book!
Gallant music - i.e. the school of Naples extended back into what we call the early Baroque era, but not everyone (JS Bach) was writing music this way or at least not all the time. But JS Bach was unfashionable in a way for being such a counterpoint nut (church musician), highly rated by musicians of course, but not considered part of the musical mainstream AFAIK... Although, Gjerdingen points out that he did also write Gallant music.
That said Bach, loved his Italian opera. His kids were big into the Neapolitan school and it influenced their music heavily.
That said just because Bach was a brilliant contrapuntalist doesn't mean he doesn't rely on quite a few recognisable patterns and licks just like the other composers of his time.Last edited by christianm77; 09-07-2016 at 02:18 PM.
-
I tend to like "common practice improvisation". Baroque improv may mean something but it is not my goal. BUT it seems thats how lot of people name common practice improvisation.
Also I do think the very cool thing about doing continuo/improvisation with common practice progressions and voice leading on guitar, and electric guitar is that ITS SOMETHING NEW! How exciting! All the sources are for keyboard (I know there is some luth stuff (and even 2 books on guitar continuo) but not very practical and even less for improvising on guitar).
Guitar is a surprisingly good instrument to attempt common practice improvisation. Especially because of modulations which are insanely easy compared to keyboard and sequences also(again especially modulating ones).
Finally, for me the big challenge is not really to play harmonic progressions. FORM is the challenge. Establishing a key, a theme, and make a coherent piece of music. A prelude is pretty easy since you only need to establish a key, diverge and come back to it. But even the simplest "song" form aka ABA could be a challenge if you want improvise it on the spot correctly.
-
Sorry, I'm cutting down your post in reply for the sake of clarity of reply.
Do you actually mean the son of the great J.S. - C.P.E.Bach when saying that he also wrote in Galant idiom?
I didn't imply at all that counterpoint that was mastered by Bach and by many others was free from patterns and idioms! on the contrary if you study(ied) it you of course know that there are many restrictions, idiomatic interval moves and so on.
The patterns are there and that's why they are quite important in respect to the predominantly "Harmonic Idiom" if ones chooses to work from it.
That was actually the whole point of my long rambling above.
I want to suggest approaching to "Baroque" music from bottom up rather than in reverse.
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
That's the strength of Gjerdingen's book. The Sanguinetti book is more about realisation of partimenti basses, but Gjerdingen gives you the modules - the Lego bricks - and how you might clip them together to write, or improvise, a piece. Originally Posted by Takemitsu
-
Gjerdigen states the JS Bach wrote some Gallant music. I can't remember whether it's in the book or in the podcast he did for the Art of Composition. Originally Posted by VKat
Nope, and indeed I wasn't suggesting you had :-)I didn't imply at all that counterpoint that was mastered by Bach and by many others was free from patterns and idioms! on the contrary if you study(ied) it you of course know that there are many restrictions, idiomatic interval moves and so on.
Gjerdingen's whole thesis is that the Italian Partimenti was a state of the art technique for the time which allowed mountains of music to be churned out that fit the stylistic and courtly strictures of the time. Even the hacks of the time had a prodigious output. Given the sheer dominance of Italian musicians in Europe at this time, it seems to fit.
Same with the singers, coming out of the same schools.
It was a streamlining of existing practices. Handel's use of partimenti based composition in London allowed him to eclipse the native composers absolutely. It was like the Beatles in America :-)
Well it seems to me it's all about intervals. Which at it's basis is the realisation of continuo and species counterpoint. AFAIK partimenti is merely a streamlining of these venerable areas of study.The patterns are there and that's why they are quite important in respect to the predominantly "Harmonic Idiom" if ones chooses to work from it.
That was actually the whole point of my long rambling above.
I want to suggest approaching to "Baroque" music from bottom up rather than in reverse.
But whatever way you cut it, you have to know your diatonic intervals and how they move, right?Last edited by christianm77; 09-07-2016 at 04:20 PM.
-
I see your point.
It's interesting that Gjerdingen although he doesn't directly disrespect later developments of the CPP (common practice period) music he hints at one thing: especially with the entrance of the Romantic period the beautiful voice leading (read contrapuntal) techniques so common in the earlier periods (Baroque as an example) were abandoned for the sake of "flashy motivis effects" and explicit harmonic background.
Most of the earlier rules were of course dictated by the vocal nature of the contrapuntal works that migrated to instrumental style as well. That and of course the idea that the musical line should be highly integral and balanced.
Take for instance "the high interval standalone note prohibition" in the counterpoint tradition: such a note was considered foreign to the otherwise integral line.
Nowdays we often hear flashy high note squeels in the vocal style. That might sound cool and to some may seem like a perfect demonstration of the strong vocal skills of a singer. In the early music that was absolutely unacceptable and if you study the counterpoint tradition you will have more respect for the strict rules once you understand their nature and origins.
Regarding your mentioning of the FORM.
Great point!
That's what I wanted to bring up in this thread as well. Suppose you learn your CPP cadences, internal moves, maybe even some idiomatic Schemata from Gjerdingen. Then what?
Yes, it's important to have a clear picture of the form you are going to improvise in.
The easiest and perhaps most appropriate form in the beginning will be some binary or ternary form just like those used in the suite dances of the Baroque period. Right to the point!
Another good option would be to play on a Ground Bass or Ostinato - Chaconne and Passacaglia are good options. These latter two are very good for a Jazzer: they suggest long drawn out variations within quite a limited harmonic framework.
What else? I think there are quite a few simpler forms of the period appropriate for more or less beginning improvisations: fantasia comes to mind off hand. I'm sure there must be some 3 to 5 such simpler common forms more.
Originally Posted by Takemitsu
-
Well just from my own personal study of composition over the years - lots of rules, hard to remember, never got very far with it - how did people write so much stuff?
This seems a lot easier.
Gjerdingen gives some analyses of pieces of the era and ideas for chaining together modules into actual pieces. I think the implication is also that you have to do some of the work yourself and look at scores of the period with a trained eye.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure I could knock out a dogmeat minuet based on what I've learned already. Maybe I'll do that now.
Ground bass is a good shout too, but I've already played around with that. You can also chain a couple of ground bass things together, or maybe transpose the bass if you get bored. Purcell-tastic.Last edited by christianm77; 09-07-2016 at 04:52 PM.
-
Yes! Now we are in complete agreement. I see that you got my point and I also I see you can quite freely navigate within the relevant terminology and historical developments of the compositional practice field. Originally Posted by christianm77
I was initially sceptical about Gjerdingen's idea that when studying the Partimenti tradition previous knowledge of the Theory of Tonal Harmony (Roman numerals, harmonic functions) would get in the way of a student. Now I see he was right and I see why.
It all started with the progression of the intervals and the Theory came later.
Obviously before Rameau no one was thinking "ii-V-I". Bachs like many others were thinking "5/3-6/3-6/3-5/3" knowing appropriate idiomatic combinations of the intervals when writing in more than two voices which we now understand as "Harmony".
If you remember in the book Gjerdingen gave a good examle of a master answering the question of a pupil asking: "Master, why is this move of notes done this or that way?" and the maestro would answer something like: "My dear young friend, let me ensure you that the way I teach you to move these notes in this way is the best _sounding_ way possible. My own maestro who taught me did it this way and the maestro of my maestro used to do it the same way..." - something like this
That emphasizes the importance of _compositional practice_ that was at the basis of the compositional tradition.
And then comes J.P.Rameau with his "Tonal Music Theory revolution"! As it appears he himself didn't compose his music with the method in mind that he popularised in his treatise.
However his "discovery" soon changed the way music was thought of forever.
-
Marcel Dupré Made his students work on strict 4 or 8 bar phrases cadencing at the end. This is what I put my energy on. when you can do that and memorize on the spot what you just did for at least 2 contrasting phrases, you can play a decent aaba tune. A minuet is pretty much the same if you dont improvise a "trio" which is just a minuet within a minuet.
I would really enjoy anyone posting an effort here!
-
Well here's the first half, first attempt.... The A of an AABB Minuet form.
If I can write a second half, might end up being a little piece for classical guitar. Obviously the dominant texture is kind of two part with a little bit of three part stuff...
I'm thinking that two part improvisation with some chords occasionally filled in is going to be the basis of any improv of this kind on the guitar. Obvious really, I guess, given that that is what a lot of the repertoire of this period for guitar looks like!
Interesting doing it. Structure took a little while to get right. The rest of it was tweaking the embellishments to flesh it out.
Bascially it's:
Do-re-mi (G)
Prinner (G)
Romanesca (G)
Prinner (D)
No idea how legit those choices are. Gjedingen's example is:
Romanesca (I)
Prinner (I)
Prinner (V)Last edited by christianm77; 09-07-2016 at 06:40 PM.
-
Also I'm not very happy with my bass. I think writing a good bass is more than half the battle, because the melody just slots in on top. Actually I can see a few things I would change already. Anyone?
Last edited by christianm77; 09-07-2016 at 06:38 PM.
-
OK, I think I can help you here. The minuet was a pretty standardized piece and as such it usually consisted of the corresponding harmonic material. Originally Posted by christianm77
Here is a little treat for you from the MTO - enjoy
:
MTO 11.2: Eckert, So, you want to write a Minuet?
Here is a PDF with the summary if you are lazy to go through the text but I suggest you do!
http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.05....1.2.eckert.pdf
-
Thanks! I'm not sure how much time I've got to go through all of this, but it's good to have it.
EDIT: Actually it's not too bad, not too much info. I'll have a crack at writing an actual minuet soon. I may try and improvise one as well.Last edited by christianm77; 09-07-2016 at 08:23 PM.
-
Actually if you go through all the fine details of note durations and their placement, intervalic relationships and so on that Riepel gives to his imaginary student (I really like this old typical method of presenting the teaching material in treatises!) you will realize that writing a good "in-the-style" example of even such a simple piece as minuet is tough. Originally Posted by christianm77
However we might think: "If 5-year old Mozart did it why can't we?"
Well, good hope... if only Mozart could check our modest attempts
-
Actually one thing I'm noticing is how the Fonte bears a striking resemblance to the melodic outline of an awful lot of bop lines.
i.e. - in the key of C, C# to Bb going into Dm. I think they also use the B to Ab sometimes in C even back then.
Reply With Quote
Neural DSP plugin 50% sale... Tone King Imperial...
Yesterday, 11:03 PM in For Sale