-
I got to this page and saw the chord symbols with the 6 and 6/4 after them. They make sense if from the Bass Clef, although the order of the intervals above this Bass note are not 6th then 4th from highest note on Treble clef down.
It's the system explained on the following previous page (shown below).
Then I can across this spicy beast boy of a page:
V with "06" after it?....."4_3"....."4+ over 2 / V"?....."07b"?
Anyone got any idea? Is this a piano thing?Last edited by Arpeggio; 01-25-2016 at 12:03 PM.
-
01-25-2016 11:59 AM
-
that's called "figured bass"
that was the "chord tab" in the baroque era
what it means is those intervals exist above the bass note
for example, a 6/4 chord with an A in the bass means the notes F# and D should be in the upper voices, meaning it is a D chord in 2nd inversion
just look up "figured bass" in a theory text
-
That's just classical notation for inversions:
superscript 6 = first inversion.
Why. consider C/E: The G is a third over the bass E, the C is a sixth over E. You could notate that as "6 (over) 3", but the 3 is so common it's assumed.
-------------------------------
superscript 6 (over) 4 = second inversion
Why: consider C/G: the C is a fourth over G and the E is a sixth over G.
-------------------------------
The rest is left as an exercise for the interested student
-
Bach was a badass improviser and Figured Bass can be looked at as the fake book of his day. It was the skeleton of tune.
-
I'm at least half serious now: was JS Bach really considered a badass in his day? I thought he was considered old-fashioned.
Originally Posted by docbop
-
"was JS Bach really considered a badass in his day?" -- he did write out a lot of cadenzas because he thought most performers were hacks and they couldn't be trusted to improvise a cadenza for his stuff (its was the performance practice of the time that the player would improvise a short cadenza at the end of a piece)
now you can point to the fact that NOBODY else wrote like he did for the last 20 years of his career. But on the other hand, JS Bach is known to have been able to improvise a 5 voice fugue, so history tells us he was a fantastic improviser
-
Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
J.S. Bach was considered, during his lifetime, to be "old fashioned" as a composer because he continued to compose in the Baroque style but he was recognized as the unequaled organist of the time.Last edited by monk; 01-25-2016 at 10:47 PM. Reason: Clarity
-
The problem is there was no recording system so can only go on what people have said. Classical had from what I am told a lot of improv in Bach's day and he loved to improvise. So people did try to write out transcriptions but again that were working from memory not a recording. After Back composers got away from improv they wanted more control, but I heard Beethoven would improvise some too. I understand there still are groups of people in France that still keep Bach's organ improv work alive. Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
Plus anyone who can write all that great music and have twenty kids is a bad dude!
-
His organ had no stops. Originally Posted by docbop
-
"After Back composers got away from improv they wanted more control," -- well, the performance practice changed and more of the improvised bits were written out, but there were still brilliant improvisers in the 19th century. Chopin, for instance, was well known for being able improvise at the piano.
but you're right that the performance practice after 1750 shifted to cadenzas being written out rather than improvised
-
and he actually was)))I thought he was considered old-fashioned.
As the well as Botticelli.. but great art is not about fashion)
Doc,The problem is there was no recording system so can only go on what people have said. Classical had from what I am told a lot of improv in Bach's day and he loved to improvise. After Back composers got away from improv they wanted more control, but I heard Beethoven would improvise some too.
I enjoy your posts always.. but here I have to disagree... Bach really was exceptionally skilful improvizor... and mostly that was his fame during lifetime.
We should remember that those days most player could compose and improvize and most composers played a few instruments at very high level...
Improvization even became a style.. pieces appeared that were composed but had to imitate improvization (Like toccatas or baroque time preludes)
But what's important that the principles of improvization those days were absolutely different in that music than in jazz...
Beethoven, Mozart, (and even Salieri!)) were improvizors because it was common thing those days... Schumann and Schubert could freely improvize pieces during parties...
Even today I know a few musicians who can improvize fugue or sonata allegro and do it in an interesting way...
But of course some were better... and JS Bach was admitted as exceptional improvizor.
Nevertheless it was writtem music that had most value...
You see the language of claasical music from baroque and classicism period is elaborated to such an extent that they actually did not have to transcribe anything....So people did try to write out transcriptions but again that were working from memory not a recording.
Musicians improvized the form... the principles were common and well-know... so basically it was enough to have basic concept of approach to form the rest was the matter of compositional techniques....
It was elaborated to such an extent that javing chosen first few steps they did not have so many choices further on...
Not only in France .. and not only organ.. most early music players I know can improvize in teh styleI understand there still are groups of people in France that still keep Bach's organ improv work alive.
-
Later...but you're right that the performance practice after 1750 shifted to cadenzas being written out rather than improvised
Mozart's cadenzas were improvized..
even Beethovens violin concerto did not have cadenza.. though of course he was one of the first concerned with this point..
what's interesting that even being written out later in romantic period they still kept the character of improvization.. I mean the improvization was gone - but the idea was still there
-
I spent twenty years as a lute player, and often read figured bass. I would be given only a bass line with some figures. The rest was up to me. I can say quite categorically that it was the best musical education I ever had. Thankfully the first opera I played in was by Monteverdi, written at a time when the style was still in embryonic form. Later I played in Bach's St John Passion and an Opera by Handel, and that's where I not only reached my own limits, but also the limits of the lute, or theorbo, I was playing at the time. It just became immensely difficult to do well. But I enjoyed the challenge.
Like any musical style, you learn the cliches, and believe me, 251 sequences abound!
As for improv, you can read about 19th-century guitar improv on my classical guitar website: rmclassicalguitar Throughout the 19th century, performers were expected to be both composers and improvisers, especially improvising preludes in the key they were about to play in, and make up fantasias - extended improvisations - and also cadenzas.
Yes, some great composers wrote out improvisations (not entirely a contradiction in terms) for lesser players to use, but that just indicates that the practice was common but varied in quality. Nothing new there.
So, why did it die out in the classical world of the 20th century? I don't know the complete answer, but I'll bet recordings and the school exam system are part of the story. I once lost a job teaching guitar in a school, because I would not stop teaching improvisation, even to classical players. The Head of Music said they didn't know how to examen it. I said, "That's your problem, not the students'", to which she replied it was my problem, as I'd just been sacked. Unbelievable, but entirely true.
-
Check out Robert Levin, a fortepianist who improvises his own cadenzas for classical concertos. He has a deep understanding of baroque and classical repertoire and a fascination with jazz improvisation. Appropriately, the first clip comes from a documentary series put together by free guitarist, Derek Bailey:
-
composing cadenzas for famous concertous became also a part of later tradition
Konstzntin Lifschitz ordered cadenza for Mozart piano concerto from my frien Boris Yoffe... consider the fact that I am sure Konstantin actually could did it himself...
It became a part of intercomunication with tradition too...
despite the fact that romantic period and later changed approach to performance much from baroque period... we should not forget that tradition was continious at least till the beginning of the 20th century...
and the idea of composing fake improvized cadenzas is also a part of this uninterrupted tradition...
that's why sometimes it seems to me that Horowitz or Furtwangler records of Bach sound more natural and authentic than modern early music players...
-
I just listned to piano concerto with him and Hogwood.... I am not sure about deep understanding...Check out Robert Levin, a fortepianist who improvises his own cadenzas for classical concertos. He has a deep understanding of baroque and classical repertoire and a fascination with jazz improvisation.
No personal offence .. maybe he has great ideas.. but I cannot hear this understanding in his playing (I am just saying what I hear...)
-
Maybe you came across an unrepresentative example, Jonah. Did you check the second clip? Many people can improvise in the style of a composer but to spontaneously create a Bach-inspired fugue takes more than just great ideas. I think anyone who's studied with everyone from Nadia Boulanger and Clifford Curzon to Robert Casadesus and Stefan Wolpe, written a highly regarded recreation of the missing sections of Mozart's Requiem and held as many positions as Levin has in the classical world is going to have a pretty heavy grasp of that music.
-
Maybe... I am not sure... orchestra was very good in this record... maybe because of Hogwood who is really great musician...Maybe you came across an unrepresentative example, Jonah.
I do not care much about technique mistakes tempo dynamics features as they are... I just hear that he does not play moments of form he does not show things things that seem most important to me from point of view of inner world of this music.. the meanings... I don't speak about levels even but pretty basic... so I am not sure this is unrepresentative... but you never know of course... expecially in arts...
I could go through it with a score to show what I mean but it will take time of course...
I just had a good personal experience... a very close firend of mine improvized was offered to improvize over Musical offering theme. And he did improvize 4-voice fugue...Many people can improvise in the style of a composer but to spontaneously create a Bach-inspired fugue takes more than just great ideas.
You see, the level today is so low in general that he was the only one in the audience who could recognize the theme (they did not name it just played it)...
so I think these skills become a bit overestimated... I see the same thing in guitar... it's enough that someone plays two-voiced Bach's counterpoint on guitar and almost everybody seems to admit he is almost Bach himself...
It looks like tricks substutute music
For me what Bach did was far and far beyond technical craft of counterpoint and compostition... actually Bach is more than msuic in tha sence...
I do not hear music when I listen to him I just Live through some experience I did not have...
And I think even they also completed Mahler's 10th and Schubert's Unfinished Symphony...I think anyone who's studied with everyone from Nadia Boulanger and Clifford Curzon to Robert Casadesus and Stefan Wolpe, written a highly regarded recreation of the missing sections of Mozart's Requiem and held as many positions as Levin has in the classical world is going to have a pretty heavy grasp of that music.
I repect experience and credintials as they are... but what I like about arts is that there's no authority - it all can be proved either through convincing performance or through reasonable argument..
Excuse me if I sound like a bore... I probably should not have joined this thread at all... but even we take renowned players I can name only few that - in my opinion - really understand music...
-
Well, the threads moved away a little from its initial topic but no trouble about you joining in Jonah. Nice to have a conversation. I love Bach's Musical Offering, especially its 6-part fugue! Sure, I know a lot of jazz guitarists who incorporate the Bach two-part inventions into their practice (a copy was on Romain Pilon's music stand when I visited him recently) so that's nothing too impressive. In fact, although I studied classical piano formally for many years, my sight reading was initially weak on the guitar and playing Bach quickly remedied that.
I get the idea that Levin enjoys being maverick about how he approaches the text and that may not concur with many people's idea of what a satisfying rendition may be. However, that's a question of taste and I have no doubt that he's thought deeply about the possibilities.
-
I make sure I don't learn any classical guitar pieces so that I am always sight reading everyday. I have many different pieces so I don't practise the same piece more than once per 2 months. Bach usually sticks out to my ears, Gigue BWV997 sounds both pleasing and pretty clever.
As for the original post, I'm aware now that the 6/4 numbers relate to intervals above the Bass note, didn't know that was from the Baroque era thanks Nate.
Any takers for the symbols in the questions for 31) to 37 f) of the last picture I posted? particularly 37 f) Oh my, what's going on there?!
-
it's common today in claasical theory too... just inversion of triadAs for the original post, I'm aware now that the 6/4 numbers relate to intervals above the Bass note, didn't know that was from the Baroque era thanks Nate.
Any takers for the symbols in the questions for 31) to 37 f) of the last picture I posted? particularly 37 f) Oh my, what's going on there?
Complex ... I do not like that style of writing really... 0 means dim, 6/5 mean 2nd inversion of any 7th chord...
but what they mean finally I do not get
-
Likewise! thanks for having a look. On 37 f) there's a O for dim, but also a + which is usually aug, so you've got both dim and aug Originally Posted by Jonah
maybe aug is in brackets so it's optional between dim or aug or some such music wizardry?
-
I sent to my friend who's really an expert both in thorough bass and traditional harmony .. let's see what he says
-
In classical + is usually for sharp, it does not mean augmented triad as in jazz/pop chord symbols... actully sharp sign # comes from + - if you check early baroque nauscrits they use + very much... but sorry for off-top...ikewise! thanks for having a look. On 37 f) there's a O for dim, but also a + which is usually aug, so you've got both dim and aug maybe aug is in brackets so it's optional between dim or aug or some such music wizardry?
I talked to my friend - he could not decipher it atually - he does not know this system.. i mean he knows it.. but how the sighs are used he cannot understand...
His first idea that in 37f it could be e-g-bb-c# going to f-a-c (natural)
-
That would be my guess too (but only a guess.) Originally Posted by Jonah
The "6(+)" refers to a raised 6th interval, which describes E-C#. The "5/b" would refer to the diminished 5th, i.e. E-Bb.
However, I would have thought, in this context, that C# (if resolving down to C) ought to be called Db. E-Db is a diminished 7th, not a major 6th!
Another possibility might be Gb-Bb-Db-E.
"Vo6/5" means the VIIdim7 chord in 1st inversion (3-5-7-R), hence G-Bb-Db-E if resolving to F.
But the 6(+) and the "5/b" both indicate the lowering of G to Gb - producing the augmented 6th interval Gb-E, as well as the chromatic Gb.
Essentially - in jazz terms - that's a Gb7 chord, bII of F, tritone sub for C7.
(Still guessing mind...)Last edited by JonR; 02-01-2016 at 01:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
New LEDs Day
Today, 07:28 PM in Other Styles / Instruments