Re: re[2]: Chords (was Adrenalinn)

["Jonathan El-Bizri" <ssrndpty@hotmail.com>]

> hmm, the impression i've been under (due to music history classes in
college) is:
>
> 1.  bach did not have a "chordal" language to work with, he worked with
interweaving melodies (to say the least)....he did not think in major and
minor triads. (at least not verticaly...i believe that intervals were
considered important as they were presented in melodic lines (doctrine of
affections).
>

Actually, it is just the opposite. Harmonic tension and resolution are at
the root of Baroque and Classical music. The >melodies< are the
'afterthought'. The coolness factor was considered how interesting and
intricate you could get this afterthought to sound - the harmonic 'rules'
are there to let you know where the bum notes are.

> 2.  the "music theory" that we are exposed (subjected) to in music school
is really rameau's analysis (100 years later) of what bach did
naturally...the chord progressions, no paralell 5ths, contrary movement are
all "rules" set up to emulate what bach's intuition and ear made him do
instinctavly.
>

I don't know - Bach's music was heavily based on the harmonic concepts of
counterpoint arrived at during the middle ages. I've read music articles
written about bach during his time, with quotes where he discusses the
'rules' of  Cantus Firmus and counterpoint. He wasn't just 'jamming' at
all - he had a lot of structure and theory he was working with. However,
this wasn't the 'theory' you learn in school - this was thoery you learnt 
by
playing lots of music, so that your fingers know the rules too.

> 3.  it really is a testament to bach's genius that his work was so in 
>tune
with "nature" (the physics of sound) and the overtone series....these
structures of sound were seemingly transparent to bach, and he intuitively
was able to make "nature speak through music".
>

I think that either your teacher was very mistaken, or a number of mine 
have
been. Bach was a legendary as a musician and improviser during his own time
(he was famous as a keyboardist before he becamse famous as a composer), 
but
it wasn't all 'by ear' :> Mozart was.

>that's been pretty much the pattern in art and scholarship: first the
>intuitive artists put it together and then the analysts take it
>apart. Finally, the poor students have to emulate the masters by
>le-based exercises, and most of them get throttled in the process.

Most?

All.