Baroque bass

Hey, here's a question...I've long read about the figured bass in Baroque compositions, and how the bass line would be used to improvise chords over, or compose on top of. But, one of my students asked the simple question tonight, why? And you know, I really don't know how/why the bassline was so important in that era, and how it came to be that way. I'll bet some folks here have some insight, hoping to get some answers...best...HH
microstick.net
PS...I read that Bach himself wrote a method on figured bass...is it available today?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Haverstick" <microstick@m...> wrote:
>
> Hey, here's a question...I've long read about the figured bass in
Baroque
> compositions, and how the bass line would be used to improvise
chords over,
> or compose on top of.

Ah...well... *kind of* like that. Might as well start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figured_bass

Really, figured bass is a notational component of basso continuo
(which is frequently shortened to just "continuo"), where the
accompaniment to a piece is notated by a bass line with further
indications as to how to build the chords above that. The continuo
group, which might be just a keyboard player, but could also include a
number of instrumentalists, then "realize" the composition. In
essence, this is quite close to playing changes on a head chart, and
there is a real art to continuo performance.

That's just my bogus thumb-nail on it. There are probably some
early/baroque music experts around that could get even more specific.

Cheers,
Jon

Neil,

I just realized my little reply to you didn't even really address your
question of "why?". Man, sometimes I just can't seem to win... :)

Cheers,
Jon

Hi Neil-

Bach's little treatise on figured bass is in the Spitta biography - dont
know if its on the web anywhere. The thing that takes you aback for a sec is
when you realize he didn't think in terms of chord inversions, which seems
so second nature to us. Rameau had introduced the concept in 1722 but it
took time for it to make its influence felt, and among reactionary
curmugeons like Bach it never did at all. A "6" in figured bass means to us
first inversion, but to Bach it meant play a sixth above the bass along with
the usual third. Everything was intervals above the bass, which makes it
even spookier that everyone nowadays studies chord inversions in Bach's four
part chorals. go figure.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
>Neil Haverstick
>Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 12:30 AM
>To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [tuning] Baroque bass
>
>
> Hey, here's a question...I've long read about the figured bass
>in Baroque
>compositions, and how the bass line would be used to improvise
>chords over,
>or compose on top of. But, one of my students asked the simple question
>tonight, why? And you know, I really don't know how/why the
>bassline was so
>important in that era, and how it came to be that way. I'll bet some folks
>here have some insight, hoping to get some answers...best...HH
>microstick.net
>PS...I read that Bach himself wrote a method on figured bass...is it
>available today?
>
>
>
>
>You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
>of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I can't back this up with any musicology, and it is certainly an over-simplified view. My view is that music of that era was still primarily "horizontal" (i.e., based on polyphony), so it makes sense that the only notated part of continuo (in the sense of notes on a staff) was the bass line precisely because it was seen as the lowest voice among many voices. In practice, a keyboard player realizing continuo had the freedom to improvise melodic voices as well as chords, so that the figures were just as much, if not more, to provide a harmonic context for improvisation as to indicate "what chord to play".

Back in the 70's I spent a great summer as the stage manager for Aston Magna (www.astonmagna.org) in Great Barrington, MA. Albert Fuller was the director then, and it was thrilling to hear him and the other keyboardists (and other musicians) recreate/propagate continuo as a living tradition.

- Dave

Jon Szanto wrote:
> Neil,
> > I just realized my little reply to you didn't even really address your
> question of "why?". Man, sometimes I just can't seem to win... :)
> > Cheers,
> Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
>
> Hi Neil-
>
> Bach's little treatise on figured bass is in the Spitta biography -
dont
> know if its on the web anywhere. The thing that takes you aback for
a sec is
> when you realize he didn't think in terms of chord inversions, which
seems
> so second nature to us. Rameau had introduced the concept in 1722
but it
> took time for it to make its influence felt, and among reactionary
> curmugeons like Bach it never did at all. A "6" in figured bass
means to us
> first inversion, but to Bach it meant play a sixth above the bass
along with
> the usual third. Everything was intervals above the bass, which
makes it
> even spookier that everyone nowadays studies chord inversions in
Bach's four
> part chorals. go figure.

Hold on, for a moment.

The harmonic-concept controversy there between JS/CPE Bach vs the
Ramellians was not about the plain 6 chord. It was about the "chord
of the added 6th", i.e. the one that looks like 6/5 in the figured
bass (6 above a 5).

For example, put the note C in the bass line and 6/5 above it, so all
the chord tones are C-E-G-A. Is it still a C major chord with extra
stuff mixed into it, or is it really (functionally) an A minor 7th
chord in inversion? That's the 18th century debate.

Rameau's way, that would be a souped-up C major chord, and the harmony
that comes after it might well be a G major triad or G major 7th, on
the way back into a C major cadence. Or it might go to A minor or
somewhere else, directly from the 6/5 chord.

Bach's way, that 6/5 chord is already itself A minor with minor 7th
(all in first inversion), and the next harmony to follow is typically
D major or minor, with the bass moving to D. The harmony is probably
on the way toward G major, but via the dominant D first.

There's a fundamental difference of root motion here, implicit in the
harmony of the 6/5 that sets it up. This also has implications for
the way the 5 of the first chord gets resolved...downward by step,
since it's the 7th of a chord (the Bach way). But Rameau didn't treat
it functionally as a 7th.

There's good presentation of this in Rita Steblin's dissertation, now
a regular book in 2nd edition, _A History of Key Characteristics in
the 18th and Early 19th Centuries_.

The two Bach primers about figured bass are both in the older _Bach
Reader_ (1960s) with a chapter heading introducing both together.
This is not in the newer _New Bach Reader_ (Christoph Wolff's) for a
reason that is explained in the preface: it's published separately in
a facsimile edition by Pamela Poulin, 1994. The Rameau treatise is
readily available from Dover Publications, the 1971 Gossett
translation into English.

Both Rameau and the Bachs treated the plain 6 chord as first inversion
of an ordinary triad. If there is only a 6 above the bass C, the
harmony is A minor. If we then add the note 5 into that, for the
Bachs we are turning it into a 7th chord, still on A minor; for Rameau
we are converting it into an enhanced C major chord. Different roots.

Bradley Lehman

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Lehman" <bpl@u...> wrote:

> For example, put the note C in the bass line and 6/5 above it, so all
> the chord tones are C-E-G-A. Is it still a C major chord with extra
> stuff mixed into it, or is it really (functionally) an A minor 7th
> chord in inversion? That's the 18th century debate.

Isn't the most obvious interpretation that both the Bachs and Rameau
are right? That is, it's the union of a C major and an A minor chord,
and so related to both of them.

Hi Brad-

Not having looked at Bach's two little treatises in many years, after
reading your post I pulled them down and had a gander. I am happy to say I
am not exhibiting signs of Alzheimers quite yet- there is not a single
mention in either treatise of "chord inversion" or anything even remotely
like it. These treatises show that from a practical point of view at least,
everything is thought of as intervals "taken" above the bass note. Which is
what I said.

Dante

>-----Original Message-----
>From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
>Brad Lehman
>Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 3:47 PM
>To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [tuning] Re: Baroque bass - "chord of the added 6th"
>
>
>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Neil-
>>
>> Bach's little treatise on figured bass is in the Spitta biography -
>dont
>> know if its on the web anywhere. The thing that takes you aback for
>a sec is
>> when you realize he didn't think in terms of chord inversions, which
>seems
>> so second nature to us. Rameau had introduced the concept in 1722
>but it
>> took time for it to make its influence felt, and among reactionary
>> curmugeons like Bach it never did at all. A "6" in figured bass
>means to us
>> first inversion, but to Bach it meant play a sixth above the bass
>along with
>> the usual third. Everything was intervals above the bass, which
>makes it
>> even spookier that everyone nowadays studies chord inversions in
>Bach's four
>> part chorals. go figure.
>
>
>Hold on, for a moment.
>
>The harmonic-concept controversy there between JS/CPE Bach vs the
>Ramellians was not about the plain 6 chord. It was about the "chord
>of the added 6th", i.e. the one that looks like 6/5 in the figured
>bass (6 above a 5).
>
>For example, put the note C in the bass line and 6/5 above it, so all
>the chord tones are C-E-G-A. Is it still a C major chord with extra
>stuff mixed into it, or is it really (functionally) an A minor 7th
>chord in inversion? That's the 18th century debate.
>
>Rameau's way, that would be a souped-up C major chord, and the harmony
>that comes after it might well be a G major triad or G major 7th, on
>the way back into a C major cadence. Or it might go to A minor or
>somewhere else, directly from the 6/5 chord.
>
>Bach's way, that 6/5 chord is already itself A minor with minor 7th
>(all in first inversion), and the next harmony to follow is typically
>D major or minor, with the bass moving to D. The harmony is probably
>on the way toward G major, but via the dominant D first.
>
>There's a fundamental difference of root motion here, implicit in the
>harmony of the 6/5 that sets it up. This also has implications for
>the way the 5 of the first chord gets resolved...downward by step,
>since it's the 7th of a chord (the Bach way). But Rameau didn't treat
>it functionally as a 7th.
>
>There's good presentation of this in Rita Steblin's dissertation, now
>a regular book in 2nd edition, _A History of Key Characteristics in
>the 18th and Early 19th Centuries_.
>
>The two Bach primers about figured bass are both in the older _Bach
>Reader_ (1960s) with a chapter heading introducing both together.
>This is not in the newer _New Bach Reader_ (Christoph Wolff's) for a
>reason that is explained in the preface: it's published separately in
>a facsimile edition by Pamela Poulin, 1994. The Rameau treatise is
>readily available from Dover Publications, the 1971 Gossett
>translation into English.
>
>Both Rameau and the Bachs treated the plain 6 chord as first inversion
>of an ordinary triad. If there is only a 6 above the bass C, the
>harmony is A minor. If we then add the note 5 into that, for the
>Bachs we are turning it into a 7th chord, still on A minor; for Rameau
>we are converting it into an enhanced C major chord. Different roots.
>
>
>Bradley Lehman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
>of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You are thinking of his son CPE Bach -- he wrote the "Essay on the True Art ofB
Playing Keyboard"B Thorough-bass is simply a meansB of isolating verticalities
that are generated by the counterpoint (counterpoint being the key here.....
somewhere along the line,B the idea of isolating these verticalities took
precedence over the counterpoint generatedB by the lines themselves. B Its like
the curse of Piston.... nobody can think outside the "chord-to-chord" analysis)
-- the notion of using the figured-bass as improv is slightly skewed.B You have
to realize the function and make-up of the continuo -- for example, a
harpsichord playing simply the bass notes in unison with a cello would be
ridiculous -- it needs to have a fuller texture and presence -- and the way to
get this is to shadow what the above lines are doing -- and figured-bass is
merely a short-hand notation.B I think the tradition of keyboard tabulature (a
la the Couperin's, for instance) is more in the realm of what you may think of
as "improv"B Paul

___________________________________________
PaulB Greenhaw
MusicB SpecialistB II
TheB NewB YorkB PublicB LibraryB forB theB PerformingB Arts
40B LincolnB CenterB Plaza
NewB York,B NYB 10023
(212)B 870-1892
__________________________________________

-----tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote: -----

> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
From: "Neil Haverstick"
Sent by: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: 01/04/2006 12:30AM
Subject: [tuning] Baroque bass

B B Hey, here's a question...I've long read about the figured bass in Baroque
compositions, and how the bass line would be used to improvise chords over,
or compose on top of. But, one of my students asked the simple question
tonight, why? And you know, I really don't know how/why the bassline was so
important in that era, and how it came to be that way. I'll bet some folks
here have some insight, hoping to get some answers...best...HH
microstick.net
PS...I read that Bach himself wrote a method on figured bass...is it
available today?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Lehman" <bpl@u...> wrote:
>
>
> > For example, put the note C in the bass line and 6/5 above it, so
all
> > the chord tones are C-E-G-A. Is it still a C major chord with
extra
> > stuff mixed into it, or is it really (functionally) an A minor 7th
> > chord in inversion? That's the 18th century debate.
>
> Isn't the most obvious interpretation that both the Bachs and Rameau
> are right? That is, it's the union of a C major and an A minor chord,
> and so related to both of them.

That doesn't matter, if Brad is wrong and Dante is right, which I
believe.

No Alzheimer's here yet either. :)

To find out JS Bach's view of chord inversions, don't look for him to
say so in words calling them "inversion" or any similar word. Rather,
it is necessary to play through the 15 musical examples of the 1738
document to see the situations where 6 chords are approached or
exited, to figure out that he really was treating them as first
inversion of the harmony. It's crystal clear that way, without any
"mention" in words. The use of 6 chords (i.e. first inversion) in
most of his situations gives a smoother and more melodic bass line,
instead of making it leap around from root to root. They are also the
necessary resolution after a preceding 4/2 chord.

The typical situations of 6-6-6-6-6-6 and 5-6-5-6-5-6 rising and 7-6-
7-6-7-6 descending are similarly treated by example.

Also note that he has his 6/5 chords resolve by bringing the bass up a
step, i.e. treating them as a first-inversion 7th with the root then
leaping up by a 4th (like dominant to tonic, functionally).

All of that confirms that the note 6 (in either the 6/5 or the plain
6) is really the root of the harmony.

I agree with you that the emphasis from a practical point of view is
simply to play whatever interval above the bass it says to play.
That's a lot easier than trying to figure out what the harmonic root
is at any given moment....

Rameau, for his part, wrote about chord inversions explicitly; and he
provided triangular and square diagrams showing how to calculate them.

Brad Lehman

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
>
> Hi Brad-
>
> Not having looked at Bach's two little treatises in many years,
after
> reading your post I pulled them down and had a gander. I am happy to
say I
> am not exhibiting signs of Alzheimers quite yet- there is not a
single
> mention in either treatise of "chord inversion" or anything even
remotely
> like it. These treatises show that from a practical point of view at
least,
> everything is thought of as intervals "taken" above the bass note.
Which is
> what I said.
>
> Dante
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of
> >Brad Lehman
> >Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 3:47 PM
> >To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [tuning] Re: Baroque bass - "chord of the added 6th"
> >
> >
> >--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Neil-
> >>
> >> Bach's little treatise on figured bass is in the Spitta biography
-
> >dont
> >> know if its on the web anywhere. The thing that takes you aback
for
> >a sec is
> >> when you realize he didn't think in terms of chord inversions,
which
> >seems
> >> so second nature to us. Rameau had introduced the concept in 1722
> >but it
> >> took time for it to make its influence felt, and among
reactionary
> >> curmugeons like Bach it never did at all. A "6" in figured bass
> >means to us
> >> first inversion, but to Bach it meant play a sixth above the bass
> >along with
> >> the usual third. Everything was intervals above the bass, which
> >makes it
> >> even spookier that everyone nowadays studies chord inversions in
> >Bach's four
> >> part chorals. go figure.
> >
> >
> >Hold on, for a moment.
> >
> >The harmonic-concept controversy there between JS/CPE Bach vs the
> >Ramellians was not about the plain 6 chord. It was about the
"chord
> >of the added 6th", i.e. the one that looks like 6/5 in the figured
> >bass (6 above a 5).
> >
> >For example, put the note C in the bass line and 6/5 above it, so
all
> >the chord tones are C-E-G-A. Is it still a C major chord with
extra
> >stuff mixed into it, or is it really (functionally) an A minor 7th
> >chord in inversion? That's the 18th century debate.
> >
> >Rameau's way, that would be a souped-up C major chord, and the
harmony
> >that comes after it might well be a G major triad or G major 7th,
on
> >the way back into a C major cadence. Or it might go to A minor or
> >somewhere else, directly from the 6/5 chord.
> >
> >Bach's way, that 6/5 chord is already itself A minor with minor 7th
> >(all in first inversion), and the next harmony to follow is
typically
> >D major or minor, with the bass moving to D. The harmony is
probably
> >on the way toward G major, but via the dominant D first.
> >
> >There's a fundamental difference of root motion here, implicit in
the
> >harmony of the 6/5 that sets it up. This also has implications for
> >the way the 5 of the first chord gets resolved...downward by step,
> >since it's the 7th of a chord (the Bach way). But Rameau didn't
treat
> >it functionally as a 7th.
> >
> >There's good presentation of this in Rita Steblin's dissertation,
now
> >a regular book in 2nd edition, _A History of Key Characteristics in
> >the 18th and Early 19th Centuries_.
> >
> >The two Bach primers about figured bass are both in the older _Bach
> >Reader_ (1960s) with a chapter heading introducing both together.
> >This is not in the newer _New Bach Reader_ (Christoph Wolff's) for
a
> >reason that is explained in the preface: it's published separately
in
> >a facsimile edition by Pamela Poulin, 1994. The Rameau treatise is
> >readily available from Dover Publications, the 1971 Gossett
> >translation into English.
> >
> >Both Rameau and the Bachs treated the plain 6 chord as first
inversion
> >of an ordinary triad. If there is only a 6 above the bass C, the
> >harmony is A minor. If we then add the note 5 into that, for the
> >Bachs we are turning it into a 7th chord, still on A minor; for
Rameau
> >we are converting it into an enhanced C major chord. Different
roots.
> >
> >
> >Bradley Lehman

I think it is rather helpful to think of the "chord" -- there are only a limited
amount of figure-bass notations (3... 6-5..... 4-2 being a few of the most
common) -- having spent some time learning to realize figured bass, I can say
that thinking of the chord UNIT is the best way.B For example, an "F" in the
bass with a 4-2..... you should immediately internalize GBDF (4-2 is 2nd
inversion 7th chord..... 7th in the bass) -- this way, when realizing the part
as a continuo, you can voice this ANYWAY.... whatever texture is needed at a
given point

___________________________________________
PaulB Greenhaw
MusicB SpecialistB II
TheB NewB YorkB PublicB LibraryB for theB PerformingB Arts
40B LincolnB CenterB Plaza
NewB York,B NYB 10023
(212)B 870-1892
__________________________________________

-----tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote: -----

> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
From: "Brad Lehman"
Sent by: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: 01/04/2006 06:02PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Baroque bass - "chord of the added 6th"

B

I agree with you that the emphasis from a practical point of view is
simply to play whatever interval above the bass it says to play.B
That's a lot easier than trying to figure out what the harmonic root
is at any given moment....

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" wrote:
>
> Hi Brad-
>
> Not having looked at Bach's two little treatises in many years,
after
> reading your post I pulled them down and had a gander. I am happy to
say I
> am not exhibiting signs of Alzheimers quite yet- there is not a
single
> mention in either treatise of "chord inversion" or anything even
remotely
> like it. These treatises show that from a practical point of view at
least,
> everything is thought of as intervals "taken" above the bass note.
Which is
> what I said.
>
> Dante
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of
> >Brad Lehman
> >Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 3:47 PM
> >To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [tuning] Re: Baroque bass - "chord of the added 6th"
> >
> >
> >--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Neil-
> >>
> >> Bach's little treatise on figured bass is in the Spitta biography
-
> >dont
> >> know if its on the web anywhere. The thing that takes you aback
for
> >a sec is
> >> when you realize he didn't think in terms of chord inversions,
which
> >seems
> >> so second nature to us. Rameau had introduced the concept in 1722
> >but it
> >> took time for it to make its influence felt, and among
reactionary
> >> curmugeons like Bach it never did at all. A "6" in figured bass
> >means to us
> >> first inversion, but to Bach it meant play a sixth above the bass
> >along with
> >> the usual third. Everything was intervals above the bass, which
> >makes it
> >> even spookier that everyone nowadays studies chord inversions in
> >Bach's four
> >> part chorals. go figure.
> >
> >
> >Hold on, for a moment.
> >
> >The harmonic-concept controversy there between JS/CPE Bach vs the
> >Ramellians was not about the plain 6 chord.B It was about the
"chord
> >of the added 6th", i.e. the one that looks like 6/5 in the figured
> >bass (6 above a 5).
> >
> >For example, put the note C in the bass line and 6/5 above it, so
all
> >the chord tones are C-E-G-A.B Is it still a C major chord with
extra
> >stuff mixed into it, or is it really (functionally) an A minor 7th
> >chord in inversion?B ; That's the 18th century debate.
> >
> >Rameau's way, that would be a souped-up C major chord, and the
harmony
> >that comes after it might well be a G major triad or G major 7th,
on
> >the way back into a C major cadence.B Or it might go to A minor or
> >somewhere else, directly from the 6/5 chord.
> >
> >Bach's way, that 6/5 chord is already itself A minor with minor 7th
> >(all in first inversion), and the next harmony to follow is
typically
> >D major or minor, with the bass moving to D.B The harmony is
probably
> >on the way toward G major, but via the dominant D first.
> >
> >There's a fundamental difference of root motion here, implicit in
the
> >harmony of the 6/5 that sets it up.B This also has implications for
> >the way the 5 of the first chord gets resolved...downward by step,
> >since it's the 7th of a chord (the Bach way).B But Rameau didn't
treat
> >it functionally as a 7th.
> >
> >There's good presentation of this in Rita Steblin's dissertation,
now
> >a regular book in 2nd edition, _A History of Key Characteristics in
> >the 18th and Early 19th Centuries_.
> >
> >The two Bach primers about figured bass are both in the older _Bach
> >Reader_ (1960s) with a chapter heading introducing both together.
> >This is not in the newer _New Bach Reader_ (Christoph Wolff's) for
a
> >reason that is explained in the preface: it's published separately
in
> >a facsimile edition by Pamela Poulin, 1994.B The Rameau treatise is
> >readily available from Dover Publications, the 1971 Gossett
> >translation into English.
> >
> >Both Rameau and the Bachs treated the plain 6 chord as first
inversion
> >of an ordinary triad.B ; If there is only a 6 above the bass C, the
> >harmony is A minor.B If we then add the note 5 into that, for the
> >Bachs we are turning it into a 7th chord, still on A minor; for
Rameau
> >we are converting it into an enhanced C major chord.B Different
roots.
> >
> >
> >Bradley Lehman