How to play Baroque sounding lines?

[woland]

Is there some set of quick rules one can follow to get Baroque vibe?
For the sake of argument let's pick Summertime as a tune.

[Guitarzen]

No not really, there is no quick way to learn to play in the Baroque style. And I hate to be mr. obvious, but listen to Baroque music and learn to play some of it...if you want to get a feel for it. Basically check out Bach as he was the pinnacle of Baroque music.

[grahambop]

I would suggest solid listening to the Bach lute suites for a week or two. Plenty of classical guitar recordings of them out there.

The texture is pretty simple i.e. mostly single note line with supporting bass notes, so it should give some ideas for guitar use.

[Jonah]

I think 'baroque vibe' is pretty simple to achieve, there are a few jazz guitarits in youtube who demostrate that...
(Ted Greene was one of them?) and imho they are based exactly on the idea to get this 'vibe' not real baroque

What is difficult is to learn to play real baroque composition and improvization..

[Rob MacKillop]

The amazing Steve Herberman devotes a whole video lesson to the subject:

Going for Baroque | Lesson by Steve Herberman | Mike's Master Classes

[matt.guitarteacher]

I think 'baroque vibe' is pretty simple to achieve, there are a few jazz guitarits in youtube who demostrate that...
(Ted Greene was one of them?) and imho they are based exactly on the idea to get this 'vibe' not real baroque

What is difficult is to learn to play real baroque composition and improvization..

+1

Ted green site has some études in print for no cost to you. Have a lot of value in and of themselves. I found them mesmerizing. Interval-based (on the melody), if I remember correctly. Guess that's counterpoint....

Again, very cool for their own sake.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Wow. A lot more than I remember seeing last time I looked. Really just a fantastic site....

http://www.tedgreene.com/teastuffg/baroque.asp

Played through the "tenths with inner pedals" etc. a while back. Simple stuff really. Immediately opens up cool sounds based on info you already know.

[NSJ]

The amazing Steve Herberman devotes a whole video lesson to the subject:

Going for Baroque | Lesson by Steve Herberman | Mike's Master Classes

Yep. This is EXCELLENT! I've worked a ton on Steve's lesson, and it really helped me internalize essential intervals on the fingerboard. Really get your thirds, sixths, tenths, and 13ths down. And using guide tone intervals to cement secondary dominant movement.

Four stars!

[rkettner]

There is a video on YT of Ted Green improvising to "Autumn Leaves" at GIT. Beautiful!

[woland]

Thanks everybody! I actually downloaded entire Ted Greene's site long ago but did not look at it for a while and I forgot about his Baroque work. As far as Bach goes I played several of his lute pieces at one point when I was playing classical. I play Barry Galbraith arrangements of Bach's two part inventions from time to time too.

[christianm77]

Personally, I'd like to spend a bit of time studying continuo. There are lots of standard formulae to study. The 'rule of the octave' is a common way to begin.

In terms of playing single note lines, I can achieve a pseudo Bachian approach if I concentrate on triadic chord tones. Important embellishments to these tones are upper diatonic and lower diatonic and chromatic neighbour tones. There are many ways of using these notes to decorate the chord tones including passing tones, appoggiaturas and suspensions....

BTW I have noticed that Bach, in common with most baroque era composers will tend to avoid the leap of an augmented second in the harmonic minor scale, so although the harmonic minor is a common way to fake a Baroque sound, the melodic minor is in fact more common.

[pushkar000]

In addition to Steve's lesson and indirectly related to the original topic, Gilad Hekselman also has a DVD out on 2 voice improvisation - its not really about Baroque playing but he talks about the inventions that I presume one can then manipulate into getting a Baroque sound.

[woland]

In addition to Steve's lesson and indirectly related to the original topic, Gilad Hekselman also has a DVD out on 2 voice improvisation - its not really about Baroque playing but he talks about the inventions that I presume one can then manipulate into getting a Baroque sound.

Thanks - it looks like a solid one:

[pushkar000]

Yes Gilad is a king and there is some good stuff in the DVD. Not only what he talks about but like in the video excerpt you posted, he plays some good stuff which you can transcribe.

[christianm77]

I was thinking more baroque vibe from the OP... Playing in a baroque pastiche style, rather than playing jazz counterpoint.

In the latter case Lage Lund also touches on this in his DVD. One point seems to be that you need to play a lot of ugly sounding exercises before you can improvise freely in counterpoint...

There's also the Jimmy Wyble book (definitely not pastiche baroque style)

[woland]

I was thinking more baroque vibe from the OP... Playing in a baroque pastiche style, rather than playing jazz counterpoint.

In the latter case Lage Lund also touches on this in his DVD. One point seems to be that you need to play a lot of ugly sounding exercises before you can improvise freely in counterpoint...

There's also the Jimmy Wyble book (definitely not pastiche baroque style)

That is interesting distinction (baroque pastiche vs usage of counterpoint in jazz line). I admit that my original idea was leaning the "pastiche" way.
Could you elaborate on your remarks on "rule of octave" basso continuo ? I Googled it and I found some links (http://www.continuo.ca/files/Intro%2...%20Harmony.pdf) which I freely admit do not immediately make sense to me - should I try to sit with this document and try to study it?

Edit:
I found some treasure trove of Jimmy Wyble stuff at: http://www.davidoakesguitar.com/jimmyTribute.php#
I was not aware about him and his work. Thanks!

[Jonah]

Could you elaborate on your remarks on "rule of octave" basso continuo ? I Googled it and I found some links (http://www.continuo.ca/files/Intro%2...%20Harmony.pdf) which I freely admit do not immediately make sense to me - should I try to sit with this document and try to study it?

Man.. you cannot work it out like this...

you have to study regular classical 4-voices tonal harmony.

From any common source... not necesarily dedicated baroque one.

[Jonah]

Christian,

I really believe there's big difference between playing sequential harmonies with correct voicings and real baroque composition..

baroque is not just 'sound' - it's the way of thinking, the way of understanding the world...

In music it's the form built on realtions of functions first of all... all the rest is secondary (including counterpoint).

(These excercises by the way are very interesting if you know what you want to do.)


That's why I said that if one wants to have 'baroque vibe' it's pretty simple.. if one wants to play real baroque its different...

and imho it has nothing in common with jazz

[woland]

Man.. you cannot work it out like this...

you have to study regular classical 4-voices tonal harmony.

From any common source... not necesarily dedicated baroque one.

OK - I did not mean to sound like an offspring of a village idiot and TV weather-girl ;-)
I do not have formal musical training but over the years some ideas about theory rubbed off on me.
So I meant to say that if that document is indeed indicative of what Christian had in mind - I could figure it out if I spend some time with it - even with my limited knowledge in theory....
Or do I still have to go to Classical Harmony 101 class?
Edit:
I mean - by all means - if your advice is "go study 4 part harmony for a few months" then sure - I am willing to consider it.

[Jonah]

K - I did not mean to sound like an offspring of a village idiot and TV weather-girl ;-)

I did not mean that)))

And I don't say that years of formal education are required...

Octave rule is good when you're more or less in tradition, in the context of language... and it's more of a technucal trick... I know accomplished continuo players who do not know anything about this rule...

Besides.. continuo is not what will bring 'baroque vibe' into playing.

In general today there's some general notion of 'sounding baroque' - it's mixture of some Bach, some Vivaldi, probably some Corelli or Haendel, some wil maybe add to it Lully or Rameau...
Most of those who identify baroque this way cannot distinguish Corelli from Vivaldi...

This is what I can call 'baroque vibe'... this is what we often meet in modern music like pop or jazz as 'baroque vibe'...
Usually it's very far from real baroque because they imitate secondary elemets like texture for example...
It was popular in film scores in 70s.. sounds like modern pop orchestra score but coloured with baroque touch (escpecially if you add some harpsichord)


So if you want to 'sound baroque' - probably some tricks here and there could be enough...

But if you want really to play baroque style then you definitely need to learn practical functional harmony.. and the best way is just to begin with triads in 4 voices - connecting on piano... first various combination of T-S-D
following pretty simple rules.. then you cadential 6/4 chord and then you move to modulations...

This is the most important thisng actually you have to be able to modulate...

Bach did not play 'lines' - he played harmony.

As per couterpoint... polyphony is not tipical baroque feature, Bach was exception.

What is the mpst importnat thing: whe you're really within functional tonality harmony in 4 voices all your choices of texture, rythm, melodic lines, countepoints are subject to your harmonic choices.

[christianm77]

Christian,

I really believe there's big difference between playing sequential harmonies with correct voicings and real baroque composition..

baroque is not just 'sound' - it's the way of thinking, the way of understanding the world...

In music it's the form built on realtions of functions first of all... all the rest is secondary (including counterpoint).

(These excercises by the way are very interesting if you know what you want to do.)


That's why I said that if one wants to have 'baroque vibe' it's pretty simple.. if one wants to play real baroque its different...

and imho it has nothing in common with jazz

OK OK chill out Jonah, the OP asked about a 'baroque vibe.' If you want to understand baroque music completely, well obviously that's years of study. I think woland is talking dipping one's toes in the water (as am I). Your response is fairly terrifying....

You could have a lot of fun doofing around with ground bass and the rule of octaves (and its variations) as a start (as I have.) And you can go a long, long way with continuo.

AFAIK functional harmony was not a field of study during the baroque era. Bach AFAIK studied counterpoint and continuo. Functional harmony as we understand it today was invented in the 19th century as a way of analysing common practice music that had already been written. Bach's era didn't even regard 6/3 and 5/3 chords as the same entity. They were thinking in intervals, which came from counterpoint.

I disagree re: relevance to jazz, baroque music is inextricably bound up with jazz because jazz harmony is based on common practice (with extensions.)

[christianm77]

That is interesting distinction (baroque pastiche vs usage of counterpoint in jazz line). I admit that my original idea was leaning the "pastiche" way.
Could you elaborate on your remarks on "rule of octave" basso continuo ? I Googled it and I found some links (http://www.continuo.ca/files/Intro%2...%20Harmony.pdf) which I freely admit do not immediately make sense to me - should I try to sit with this document and try to study it?

Edit:
I found some treasure trove of Jimmy Wyble stuff at: David Oakes
I was not aware about him and his work. Thanks!

The basic rule of octaves is really simple, but you will need to know some continuo nomenclature which is unfamiliar to jazzers.

In continuo, the intervals are given in order of the biggest first, so a diatonic 7th chord is a 7 5 3, for example. We will use two basic types of chords for the simplest rule of the octave which are

5 3 - a third (or tenth) and a fifth (or twelfth)
6 3 - a third and a sixth (same thing as a 1st inversion triad but this is not how Bach thought of it)

These figures refer to diatonic intervals by default - so a D 6 3 in C major would be D B F (a 1st inversion B diminished triad)

For shorthand we write nothing for 5 3, 6 for 6 3

So for a C major scale
C D6 E6 F6 G A6 B6 C

and back

(which would be
C B/F C/E Dm/F G F/A G/B C

There are much more complicated versions.

Check out some of the material online about basso continuo, lots of info out there.

When you learn continuo you are interested in developing smooth voice-leading and avoiding consecutive fifths and octaves. You can have a lot of fun experimenting with adding a melody line and using suspensions, appoggiaturas and passing tones (look them up if you don't know what these are, they are extremely useful for jazz improvisation on changes.)

Many early baroque/late renaissance continuo parts don't bother to write any figures and leave you to work it out... Bach's figured bass was pretty complex as there was a lot of specific harmony he wanted, but the basics are fun to play around with.

Hope that answers your question. Caveat - I am really not an expert on continuo, far from it, just an interested amateur. I know at least one person who has posted on this forum who is an professional at this though :-)

[Jonah]

Christian,

I do not mean to be terrifying at all))

on the other hand..

AFAIK functional harmony was not a field of study during the baroque era. Bach AFAIK studied counterpoint and continuo. Functional harmony as we understand it today was invented in the 19th century as a way of analysing common practice music that had already been written. Bach's era didn't even regard 6/3 and 5/3 chords as the same entity. They were thinking in intervals, which came from counterpoint.

In general it does not matter much... as teaching method or theory it was completed later.. but the acumen of functional tonality as musical language is baroque and classical period (probably classical is already beginning of decline)

it was already the language they used whether they did it conciously or not...

You do not need any method actuall - though there are lots of manuals - mostly based on 19th century studies (in my country they all come from Tchaikovsky's manual)... the language is so much into cultural context that it is enough to know basic voicing rules, to know functions .. and ahve general guideline.. and in a month or two you'll be in it.. and details will come with practical listening and playing...

reading Rameau or Fuchs early books on harmony could be fun of course but not at all necessary...

Of course the more you get into it - the more you need... and considering each composer or national school there could be lots of details.. Bach was very conservative in his methods and techniques - he was behind his time in that sence.. and of course there are lots of things coming from rearlier music... even in Mozart..

But I think it is always important to grast essential first.. not to be misled by details...

I disagree re: relevance to jazz, baroque music is inextricably bound up with jazz because jazz harmony is based on common practice (with extensions.)

it's important... you see it's the form... that makes all the difference... if you take just sequences, a few bars there and here, some chord changes - maybe you will find the relevnce....

but if you check what it was all really used for.. you'll see all the difference...

It's again about essential.. imho

Try to compare the form of any baroque piece and any jazz piece

[christianm77]

Christian,

I do not mean to be terrifying at all))

on the other hand..





In general it does not matter much... as teaching method or theory it was completed later.. but the acumen of functional tonality as musical language is baroque and classical period (probably classical is already beginning of decline)

it was already the language they used whether they did it conciously or not...

You do not need any method actuall - though there are lots of manuals - mostly based on 19th century studies (in my country they all come from Tchaikovsky's manual)... the language is so much into cultural context that it is enough to know basic voicing rules, to know functions .. and ahve general guideline.. and in a month or two you'll be in it.. and details will come with practical listening and playing...

reading Rameau or Fuchs early books on harmony could be fun of course but not at all necessary...

Of course the more you get into it - the more you need... and considering each composer or national school there could be lots of details.. Bach was very conservative in his methods and techniques - he was behind his time in that sence.. and of course there are lots of things coming from rearlier music... even in Mozart..

But I think it is always important to grast essential first.. not to be misled by details...





it's important... you see it's the form... that makes all the difference... if you take just sequences, a few bars there and here, some chord changes - maybe you will find the relevnce....

but if you check what it was all really used for.. you'll see all the difference...

It's again about essential.. imho

Try to compare the form of any baroque piece and any jazz piece

Intellectually, I have a counter argument but it is really irrelevant. I am not a very good improvisor in baroque style so my thoughts are probably neither here nor there. It sounds like you have spent some time learning to do this, though?

[christianm77]

If you are interested in where I got the notion of continuo as a basis for composition, it is from CPE Bach's writings. This article deals with the subject

Composition Before Rameau: Harmony, Figured Bass, and Style in the Baroque - College Music Symposium