The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 26 to 35 of 35
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    They would say: it's not authentic choice, crazy post-romantic traditionalist
    You're out of control.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu


  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Mr. Gjergingen created very nice website.

    Monuments of Partimenti

    I think it is great that they try to incorporate it.
    When I practiced baroque improvization on lute I did basically teh same thing - but I collected 'partimenti' from real pieces of music and did not do that systematically.

    Nevertheless I still have some doubts about it:

    as it happens sometimes the efforts of one (of few) persons turn into a trend, theit conclusions become rules and I already see how the idea of partimenti penetrates everything... they already try to analyze even complex Bach's polyphony through 'partimenti'.. (the same thing seems to happen with 'tactus' conception which is being promoted through a few authoritive players but is not convincing for me at all)

    though I believe that 'partimenti' could be a good practical excercise I think that it is wrong to use them as analytical tool (though partly they represent semantical elements of form of course), and especially tryng to analyze with them great music - to me it shows total lack of imagination.

    Another argument I have is that I believe that these books and collections were mostly published for wealthy amateurs and were elaborated respectively - that is why some things that must be obvious for a pro player could be strangely emphasized... pro players studied with teachers.. the books were designed for those who did not have a teacher.

    The biggest problem I see here is the tendency to ignore overall form which is based on functional tonality relation on major level. An this is crucial for music as real art.

    Nevertheless it is a good material.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    I’d be interested to know how important analysis was in this era of music and what form it took.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    I’d be interested to know how important analysis was in this era of music and what form it took.
    interesting question. I have no idea...

    I think that probably analysis becoems more important when art and its language becomes more referential, more historically or ideologically oriented.

    It is like you are a merchant and you come to Hamburg or Venice or Antwerp during the period of flourishing commerce by land and sea. If you are smart (and gifted) you do not analyze a lot (you but it is practical analayzis) - you are surrounded by flows, currents and wind - you catch it or lose it, you jump into it.

    And imagine the same thing during the period of decline - that's when you really need to analyze a lot, even
    elaborate a system to make up something.
    (I think musicology in modern sense came up approximately at the time when people began to play and listent to music of previous periods, as well as museums and art historians)

    High baroque (and early classicim) was a period of climax - it was extremely moving and active.... no time to analyze and make systems.

    But it does not mean they did not understand anything.

    For me analyzis is something about semantics of the piece... you do not have to use special terms or system... for example the fact that Handel could write operas like Almira, Agrippina or Rinaldo at such a young age shows that the level of language development was so high that he did not have to think OF music, he could think WITH music directly.
    (In that sense by the way these partimenti have no meaning too, because that way "thinking with music" much much above funny ''lego games". Of course Handel was genius, but cares about mediocracy?).


    There were some guys like Rameau and a couple more who elaborated systems but it was very unique and personal thing.

    If we look backwards - at early baroque we will find much more theoretical specualtion both tehnical and aethetical - I think it is becasue it was a 'crossroad point' - they had too many options which often means 'nothing' and they needed something to build their art upon... (also the heritage of medeical theoresists was still very influential...)...

    Maybe I am wrong... but I think today in the time of democracy everything became too much average and mediocre and that it why people are really happy to discover that art is simple... look at youtube people watch the guy walking around NY for an hour and speeking just what he sees - and they say 'thank you for your art'
    This is art... and it is really pleasent to find out that Handel or Bach used something that everyone could use. ''That all was simple! Learn partimenti! Har wok maybe but possible for everyone'' No.
    It is the same thing with jazz players and drugs... 'oh it's all drugs (meaning 'If I took drugs I could do the same')...
    It is all the tyranny of mediocre majority.

    Maybe I am wrong, but most probably I am absolutely right.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    interesting question. I have no idea...

    I think that probably analysis becoems more important when art and its language becomes more referential, more historically or ideologically oriented.

    It is like you are a merchant and you come to Hamburg or Venice or Antwerp during the period of flourishing commerce by land and sea. If you are smart (and gifted) you do not analyze a lot (you but it is practical analayzis) - you are surrounded by flows, currents and wind - you catch it or lose it, you jump into it.

    And imagine the same thing during the period of decline - that's when you really need to analyze a lot, even
    elaborate a system to make up something.
    (I think musicology in modern sense came up approximately at the time when people began to play and listent to music of previous periods, as well as museums and art historians)

    High baroque (and early classicim) was a period of climax - it was extremely moving and active.... no time to analyze and make systems.

    But it does not mean they did not understand anything.

    For me analyzis is something about semantics of the piece... you do not have to use special terms or system... for example the fact that Handel could write operas like Almira, Agrippina or Rinaldo at such a young age shows that the level of language development was so high that he did not have to think OF music, he could think WITH music directly.
    (In that sense by the way these partimenti have no meaning too, because that way "thinking with music" much much above funny ''lego games". Of course Handel was genius, but cares about mediocracy?).


    There were some guys like Rameau and a couple more who elaborated systems but it was very unique and personal thing.

    If we look backwards - at early baroque we will find much more theoretical specualtion both tehnical and aethetical - I think it is becasue it was a 'crossroad point' - they had too many options which often means 'nothing' and they needed something to build their art upon... (also the heritage of medeical theoresists was still very influential...)...

    Maybe I am wrong... but I think today in the time of democracy everything became too much average and mediocre and that it why people are really happy to discover that art is simple... look at youtube people watch the guy walking around NY for an hour and speeking just what he sees - and they say 'thank you for your art'
    This is art... and it is really pleasent to find out that Handel or Bach used something that everyone could use. ''That all was simple! Learn partimenti! Har wok maybe but possible for everyone'' No.
    It is the same thing with jazz players and drugs... 'oh it's all drugs (meaning 'If I took drugs I could do the same')...
    It is all the tyranny of mediocre majority.

    Maybe I am wrong, but most probably I am absolutely right.
    I find Gjerdingen’s essential point that music education of the time was primarily craft oriented, apprenticeship based and not analysis/theory oriented convincing intuitively, although I lack specific knowledge of the literature of the era.

    Western European musical culture was somewhat specific back then. Everyone needed to be able to write a minuet.

    There’s that lesson of Mozart on how to write a minuet that someone posted ages ago. Practical advice, do this, don’t do this, this is better, this is how I’d do it.

    You can’t put that into a textbook or college syllabus.... you are receiving direct advice and guidance from a master. ‘We know more than we can tell’ In this case the ancient dialogue form can be useful - being a ‘fly on the wall’ gives more context.

    Which is reflected in that, say, Fux is written as a dialogue, even though it’s about species counterpoint, one of the driest areas of composition training. I think we should rehabilitate the form in music edu come to think of it!

    We can understand where the student is coming from, and why the teacher is teaching the way they are. The relationship between student and teacher is elucidated... we can put ourselves in the students shoes, or observe the lesson from a third viewpoint. It’s much richer than the mere delivery of information.

    Perhaps post Rameau and going into the later 18th century thinkers wanted to present music as something objective and scientific so things became more textbook oriented. Music theory became more absorbed into the craft of music, and confused with it.

    Big mistake if you ask me.... ;-)

    There’s a lot of extremely mediocre and generic 17th and 18th century music btw. Skillfully written, always.
    Last edited by christianm77; 09-04-2019 at 04:15 AM.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    I find Gjerdingen’s essential point that music education of the time was primarily craft oriented, apprenticeship based and not analysis/theory oriented convincing intuitively, although I lack specific knowledge of the literature of the era.
    I believe it is true.
    But craft is not enough to compose Ich ruch zu dir choral prelude... I refer to it becasue there is video on you tube where Partimenti are used to analyze this piece of music.

    I even think that Scarlatti or Handel would be surprised with that these simple excercises evoke so much attention. Practice and forget, write music, write stories about love, betrayal, faith, death...


    There’s a lot of extremely mediocre and generic 17th and 18th century music btw. Skillfully written, always.
    But you see that is my opint... the language was developed to such a refined quality and complexity that even ratehr generic music sounds often interesting.... as I call it 'fun to play but not always that fun to listen to'.

    As for the rest I am ready to agree... (I always am)

    just one point more... nothing personal against Mr. Gjerdingen but musicologists often choose a new topic and develope it intesively making a sort of trend out of it. This is important for their career.

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    I believe it is true.
    But craft is not enough to compose Ich ruch zu dir choral prelude... I refer to it becasue there is video on you tube where Partimenti are used to analyze this piece of music.

    I even think that Scarlatti or Handel would be surprised with that these simple excercises evoke so much attention. Practice and forget, write music, write stories about love, betrayal, faith, death...
    Sure. But they did all of that stuff when they were 7. It’s like talking to Shakespeare about the alphabet.

    But you see that is my opint... the language was developed to such a refined quality and complexity that even ratehr generic music sounds often interesting.... as I call it 'fun to play but not always that fun to listen to'.
    You know I’ve heard that said about another style of music.... what was it? Jizz? Jass? No, it’s gone.

    As for the rest I am ready to agree... (I always am)

    just one point more... nothing personal against Mr. Gjerdingen but musicologists often choose a new topic and develope it intesively making a sort of trend out of it. This is important for their career.
    This seems particularly an American trait.

    Lot of licks in that music though. Just saying.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Sure. But they did all of that stuff when they were 7
    I think they did not do it at all. THey most probably just absorbed music and re-created it.

    the most important thing to me is what is the impulse behind it?
    In my opinion when I want to improvize I want to express the idea, the meaning, the image... and if I am talented I have some integral anticipation of what is going on, right?
    If I am gifted kid I am not playing a set of partimenti - I am playing directly music.
    It is more normal and adequate for a talanted musical person to unconciously recreate the whole theing and general moves than copy fragments.
    When a kid tries to write a book he usually tries to copy a conception of form - nit just fragments (even if he does not go farther than 1-2 chapters which often happens with kids).

    For me personally it is much easier to thing about the whole thing than combine a puzzle of sifferent fragments.





    I just feel that with 'partimenti' it is getting a bit over-emphasized now..

    i saw the same thing with 'tactus'... a few authoritive statements that 'it is impossible to ignore 'tactus', 'it was definitely ...', 'playing without tactus is wrong' by some players... and a couple of years later I hear how beginner-amateurs or students in early music say with serious faces: well.. you should strictly follow tactus here... if you question 'why?', 'what do you know about it?' and finally 'Have you relaly read any source personally?'... nothing...

    And I see now that these partimenti are getting more and more dogmatic. When you forst mentioned it in this thread it was not yet a trend.. butnow there is a lot of stuff about it and often it is treated like undoubtedly true fact.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    I think they did not do it at all. THey most probably just absorbed music and re-created it.

    the most important thing to me is what is the impulse behind it?
    In my opinion when I want to improvize I want to express the idea, the meaning, the image... and if I am talented I have some integral anticipation of what is going on, right?
    If I am gifted kid I am not playing a set of partimenti - I am playing directly music.
    It is more normal and adequate for a talanted musical person to unconciously recreate the whole theing and general moves than copy fragments.
    When a kid tries to write a book he usually tries to copy a conception of form - nit just fragments (even if he does not go farther than 1-2 chapters which often happens with kids).

    For me personally it is much easier to thing about the whole thing than combine a puzzle of sifferent fragments.





    I just feel that with 'partimenti' it is getting a bit over-emphasized now..

    i saw the same thing with 'tactus'... a few authoritive statements that 'it is impossible to ignore 'tactus', 'it was definitely ...', 'playing without tactus is wrong' by some players... and a couple of years later I hear how beginner-amateurs or students in early music say with serious faces: well.. you should strictly follow tactus here... if you question 'why?', 'what do you know about it?' and finally 'Have you relaly read any source personally?'... nothing...

    And I see now that these partimenti are getting more and more dogmatic. When you forst mentioned it in this thread it was not yet a trend.. butnow there is a lot of stuff about it and often it is treated like undoubtedly true fact.
    Well you know me. Ultimate hipster.