Learning basso continuo on the guitar

[Mental Handle]

Here is another etude for learning and understanding
the basic concept of basso continuo on the guitar:

Do you like it?

[Murdick]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Cactus Wren]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Mental Handle]

Post by Cactus Wren

I wrote a book 30 years ago on playing from figured bass for the guitar...

Kent,
I became interested in this stuff for awhile when I first became aware

of figured bass. I, er, figured that it would really give you a leg up on
learning music in that idiom if you got fluency in improvising melodies and
harmonies on a given bassline. Rob MacKillop also may have written
something on it.

Post by Cactus Wren
Do you know of anyone who ever mastered this style?

Mastered? Johann Sebastian Bach has mastered it ;)

http://youtu.be/KyCj7Q55oJ4

[Steve Freides]

Post by Cactus Wren

Post by Murdick
I wrote a book 30 years ago on playing from figured bass for the
guitar. I never tried to get it published. It was based on playing
four note chords which are quite easy to learn since I based them on
five major and three minor larger chord forms. What you would do is
play iii, vi, ii, iv, v7, vii7 i in all inversions and in all major
and minor keys (Shearer had us do this). Then I had a bunch of
progressive exercises with figured bass. It only took a few weeks to
learn to do simple pieces of which there are many. Eventually you
would bring the four note chords down to three and two note chords
and be able to use chords that were not closely related to the
original chord forms. It's like learning anything else, you first
learn to be competent with a few forms and then expand on that.
It's exactly the way I teach teach jazz rhythm chords. You can play
every jazz tune ever written with eight four note fingerings - fewer
than that if you use shell chords.

Kent,
I became interested in this stuff for awhile when I first became
aware of figured bass. I, er, figured that it would really give you a
leg up on learning music in that idiom if you got fluency in
improvising melodies and harmonies on a given bassline. Rob
MacKillop also may have written something on it. Do you know of
anyone who ever mastered this style?

Doing this on keyboard was a requirement of my education at Mannes
College.

There are many people who have mastered this - people who play early
music on keyboard must be able to do this. Note that quite a number of
pieces of music were written as only as only a solo line plus a continuo
part.

I don't imagine it would be a big stretch for me to realize a figured
bass on guitar.

-S-

[Mental Handle]

Post by Steve Freides

Post by Cactus Wren

Post by Murdick
I wrote a book 30 years ago on playing from figured bass for the
guitar. I never tried to get it published. It was based on playing
four note chords which are quite easy to learn since I based them on
five major and three minor larger chord forms. What you would do is
play iii, vi, ii, iv, v7, vii7 i in all inversions and in all major
and minor keys (Shearer had us do this). Then I had a bunch of
progressive exercises with figured bass. It only took a few weeks to
learn to do simple pieces of which there are many. Eventually you
would bring the four note chords down to three and two note chords
and be able to use chords that were not closely related to the
original chord forms. It's like learning anything else, you first
learn to be competent with a few forms and then expand on that.
It's exactly the way I teach teach jazz rhythm chords. You can play
every jazz tune ever written with eight four note fingerings - fewer
than that if you use shell chords.

Kent,
I became interested in this stuff for awhile when I first became
aware of figured bass. I, er, figured that it would really give you a
leg up on learning music in that idiom if you got fluency in
improvising melodies and harmonies on a given bassline. Rob
MacKillop also may have written something on it. Do you know of
anyone who ever mastered this style?

Doing this on keyboard was a requirement of my education at Mannes
College.
There are many people who have mastered this - people who play early
music on keyboard must be able to do this. Note that quite a number of
pieces of music were written as only as only a solo line plus a continuo
part.
I don't imagine it would be a big stretch for me to realize a figured
bass on guitar.

Yep and I even think one cannot understand diatonic music without
virtually understanding b.c. because it just names the de-facto
architecture of this music. Ok, when you learn just functional
harmony, where the dominant chord is the dominant chord, one never
can "understand" the 2-chord (which is called Sekundakkord in german),
for instance, which really IS a class of its own that one must have
been given this "audio perception" some name sometime in the same
way he recognizes the 3rd in the dominant bass chord which is the
leading tone of the key und which really sound like a 6-chord.
The school of functional harmony,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_harmony just dismisses
and discards the function of the bass note which is not only
clearly audible and perceptible but a very main component in
music, which is why jazz and pop music notation "returned" to
write the bass note on demand like G/F which would be a 2-chord
in b.c. In this way it is REALLY impossible to "avoid" the
concept of b.c. which is just the written architecture of
diatonic music ;)

[Mental Handle]

... In this way it is REALLY impossible to "avoid" the
concept of b.c. which is just the written architecture of
diatonic music ;)

... the explicitely numbered harmonic architecture of diatonic music

[Steve Freides]

Post by Mental Handle

Post by Steve Freides

Post by Cactus Wren

Post by Murdick
I wrote a book 30 years ago on playing from figured bass for the
guitar. I never tried to get it published. It was based on playing
four note chords which are quite easy to learn since I based them
on five major and three minor larger chord forms. What you would
do is play iii, vi, ii, iv, v7, vii7 i in all inversions and in
all major and minor keys (Shearer had us do this). Then I had a
bunch of progressive exercises with figured bass. It only took a
few weeks to learn to do simple pieces of which there are many.
Eventually you would bring the four note chords down to three and
two note chords and be able to use chords that were not closely
related to the original chord forms. It's like learning anything
else, you first learn to be competent with a few forms and then
expand on that. It's exactly the way I teach teach jazz rhythm
chords. You can play every jazz tune ever written with eight four
note fingerings - fewer than that if you use shell chords.

Kent,
I became interested in this stuff for awhile when I first became
aware of figured bass. I, er, figured that it would really give you
a leg up on learning music in that idiom if you got fluency in
improvising melodies and harmonies on a given bassline. Rob
MacKillop also may have written something on it. Do you know of
anyone who ever mastered this style?

Doing this on keyboard was a requirement of my education at Mannes
College.
There are many people who have mastered this - people who play early
music on keyboard must be able to do this. Note that quite a number
of pieces of music were written as only as only a solo line plus a
continuo part.
I don't imagine it would be a big stretch for me to realize a figured
bass on guitar.

Yep and I even think one cannot understand diatonic music without
virtually understanding b.c. because it just names the de-facto
architecture of this music. Ok, when you learn just functional
harmony, where the dominant chord is the dominant chord, one never
can "understand" the 2-chord (which is called Sekundakkord in german),
for instance, which really IS a class of its own that one must have
been given this "audio perception" some name sometime in the same
way he recognizes the 3rd in the dominant bass chord which is the
leading tone of the key und which really sound like a 6-chord.
The school of functional harmony,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_harmony just dismisses
and discards the function of the bass note which is not only
clearly audible and perceptible but a very main component in
music, which is why jazz and pop music notation "returned" to
write the bass note on demand like G/F which would be a 2-chord
in b.c. In this way it is REALLY impossible to "avoid" the
concept of b.c. which is just the written architecture of
diatonic music ;)

I don't know where you have come up with this "disagreement" between the
concepts of basso continuo and functional harmony.

I suspect that you are trying to stress the importance of linear motion
in common practice period music, and that is undeniably true, but so is
functional harmony true. IMHO, the definitve text book on the subject
is "Harmony and Voice Leading" by Ed Aldwell and Carl Schacter. An
earlier book which makes much the same point, and which also teaches
species counterpoint in the context of the major and minor tonalities of
CP period music is "Counterpoint in Composition" by Felix Salzer and
Carl Schachter. Both of these books reflect the thinking of Heinrich
Schenker and indeed there is a lineage to be traced here from Schenker
to Salzer to Schachter. Schenker stresses the equal importance of both
the vertical (chordal, functional harmonic) and the horizontal (linear,
contrapuntal) aspects of CP period music.

Larry, I shouldn't have started down this road, should I? <sigh>

-S-

-S-

[Mental Handle]

Post by Steve Freides
I don't know where you have come up with this "disagreement" between the
concepts of basso continuo and functional harmony.

I just stated that a typical functional harmony analysis could be

funcion T t s D7 t

while the same in b.c. notation contains more information like

c.p. # 6 b 2 6
bass c as f f es

But thats not all, especially in order to write down any kind
of the variety of possible suspended notes or anticipated notes
or even any (!) kind of combination of notes in b.c. is easily
representable so that c.p. simply provides much more information
than functional harmony.

There are also "problems", for instance, when you write things
like D D S D D Tp you force the recepient into an hearing mode
that he otherwise not would have perceived - You are getting
fiddled into a certain direction no matter how ambivalent
harmony can be and also is!

You just cannot analyze complex harmony like a fugue when the
bass plays a complex theme - while its componist EVEN THINKS
in terms of the b.c. capabilities when he develops his cantus
firmus and the counterpoints - he can /see/ the possibilities
which a melody offers for counterpoint, even in the bass.

But you even could not correctly state the harmonic functions
of a phrygian passage, because the phrygian mode just does not
exist in functional harmony, but it does exist for the Beatles,
for instance...

But OK, "everyone" today thinks just in I IV I V - "architecture",
and there is no need to write things like fugues, so what ;)

[Mental Handle]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:22:33 +0200, Mental Handle wrote:

Some typos...

Post by Mental Handle
But thats not all, especially in order to write down any kind
of the variety of possible suspended notes or anticipated notes
or even any (!) kind of combination of notes in b.c. is easily
representable so that c.p.

b.c.

Post by Mental Handle
simply provides much more information than functional harmony.
There are also "problems", for instance, when you write things
like D D S D D Tp

The write such possibly like:

(D) (D) S (D) (D) Tp

or, even totally unambigous:

((D)D) S ((D)D)) Tp

Post by Mental Handle
you force the recepient into an hearing mode
that he

might

Post by Mental Handle
otherwise not would have perceived

http://youtu.be/KyCj7Q55oJ4

[Steve Freides]

Post by Mental Handle
But OK, "everyone" today thinks just in I IV I V - "architecture",
and there is no need to write things like fugues, so what ;)

No, I don't think that's true at all. Read Harmony and Voice Leading
and you'll see a very balanced approach, and it's quite a popular
college theory text.

-S-

[Mental Handle]

Post by Steve Freides

Post by Mental Handle
But OK, "everyone" today thinks just in I IV I V - "architecture",
and there is no need to write things like fugues, so what ;)

No, I don't think that's true at all.

Didn't you notice the smiley?

Post by Steve Freides
Read Harmony and Voice Leading

I did of course.

Post by Steve Freides
and you'll see a very balanced approach, and it's quite a popular
college theory text.

Yes - you can use whatever harmony and theory school you want - but
MY result is what I have said - I try to think in b.c. and I got
pleasant results - even when I learned all that function stuff before.

It is a fact that such schools differ in many aspects and while the
functional approach is much easier to follow first it also has its
limits, another example - tell me the functions of the chord line
F - G - A in the Beatles song Instant Karma (at the text in verse 1
"pretty soon you're gonna be dead").

[Mental Handle]

the functions of the chord line F - G - A in the Beatles song

A F#m
Instant karma's gonna get you
A F#m
Gonna knock you right in the head
A F#m
You better get yourself together,
F G A
Pretty soon your gonna be dead


What function is F and G in A major?

Any ideas? Anyone?

[Mental Handle]

When you are done I gotta let out the basso continuo take!

Post by Mental Handle

the functions of the chord line F - G - A in the Beatles song

A F#m
Instant karma's gonna get you
A F#m
Gonna knock you right in the head
A F#m
You better get yourself together,
F G A
Pretty soon your gonna be dead
What function is F and G in A major?
Any ideas? Anyone?

[Mental Handle]

Post by Steve Freides

Post by Mental Handle
But OK, "everyone" today thinks just in I IV I V - "architecture",
and there is no need to write things like fugues, so what ;)

No, I don't think that's true at all.

I didn't just state MY opinion. It is just a fact, that by far
(up to jazz) the most contemporary music uses this approach, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_function#Functional_harmony :

"The term functional harmony derives from Hugo Riemann and his
textbooks on harmony in the late 19th century, with roots back
to Jean-Philippe Rameau's theoretical works amongst others.

His main idea was to create a comprehensive theoretical basis
for understanding the principles of harmonic relationships typical
for the Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods. His work had
huge impact, especially where German influence was strong. A good
example in this regard are the textbooks by Hermann Grabner.[5][6]

Riemann's basic theories have since been adopted, refined and
elaborated upon by many authors of textbooks in harmony, arranging
and composition. Functional harmony is being taught as a basic
discipline in music theory all over the western world, though
different labels are used. Other terms used in the English and
American tradition include Common Practice Harmony (stemming
from Walter Piston[7]), Tonal harmony (as used by Allen Forte[8]),
and Traditional harmony (as used by Gordon Delamont.[9]

Vincent Persichetti[10] describes the 19th-century harmonic
repertoire as "chords evolving around the tonic pillars"
(tonic, subdominant, dominant)."

You see...

Thats nice but there is also more:

"Nonfunctional harmony, the opposite of functional harmony, is
harmony whose progression is not guided by function."

... should read "is not guided by function given by Riemann et al."

[Mental Handle]

Mental Handle wrote:

Another example is Richard Wagner - there is of course not ONE
functional harmonic analysis although this music not as "far"
from Riemann function as Debussy for instance - but one can give
ONE b.c. analyis, which states the same (up to the variety of
different notations for the same situation). For the many ways
of perceive this as function, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_chord#Functional_analyses

A single chord... I think you can see there IS different perception.

"Functional analyses

Tristan chord analyzed as a French sixth with appoggiatura
and dominant seventh with passing tone in A minor.[6]
Functional analyses include interpreting the chord's root as on:

the fourth scale degree (IV) of A minor...

the second degree (II) of A minor (B)...

as a secondary dominant (V/V=B...

F or B in A: Considering...

D'Indy (1903, p. 117),[9] who analyses the chord as on IV
after Riemann's transcendent principle (as phrased by Serge
Gut: "the most classic succession in the world: Tonic, Subdominant,
Dominant" (1981, p. 150)) and rejects the idea of an added "lowered
seventh", eliminates, "all artificial, dissonant notes, arising
solely from the melodic motion of the voices, and therefore foreign
to the chord," finding that the Tristan chord is "no more than a
subdominant in the key of A, collapsed in upon itself melodically,
the harmonic progression represented thus:
...
"


D'Indy Tristan chord IV6 in IV6-V, as shown in Nattiez.[9]
"This is the simplest in the world," just a sophisticated sixth chord.

Deliège, independently, sees the G♯ as an appoggiatura to A, describing that


in the end only one resolution is acceptable, one that takes the subdominant
degree as the root of the chord, which gives us, as far as tonal logic is
concerned, the most plausible interpretation ... this interpretation of the
chord is confirmed by its subsequent appearances in the Prelude's first
period: the IV6 chord remains constant; notes foreign to that chord vary.


Functional Harmony perception depends on the learned skills of
hearing in the same way arabic music theory perception does.

[Mental Handle]

Post by Steve Freides
I don't know where you have come up with this "disagreement"
between the concepts of basso continuo and functional harmony.

These are just different concepts in fact...

For instance, it would be "hard" to analyze my example piece
Basso Continuo Guitar Etude http://youtu.be/KyCj7Q55oJ4
using the functional harmony concept, which is easy using the
basso continuo concept, which has no problems with the chromatic
bass over on octave, although it is elder than the more "modern"
functional harmony.

[Steve Freides]

Post by Mental Handle

Post by Steve Freides
I don't know where you have come up with this "disagreement"
between the concepts of basso continuo and functional harmony.

These are just different concepts in fact...
For instance, it would be "hard" to analyze my example piece
Basso Continuo Guitar Etude http://youtu.be/KyCj7Q55oJ4
using the functional harmony concept, which is easy using the
basso continuo concept, which has no problems with the chromatic
bass over on octave, although it is elder than the more "modern"
functional harmony.

You miss the point though - some pieces of music (parts of pieces of
music, etc.), are more driven by harmony, others more driven by
counterpoint. That's not a conflict, and one is not better or worse
than the other.

-S-

[Mental Handle]

Post by Steve Freides

Post by Mental Handle

Post by Steve Freides
I don't know where you have come up with this "disagreement"
between the concepts of basso continuo and functional harmony.

These are just different concepts in fact...
For instance, it would be "hard" to analyze my example piece
Basso Continuo Guitar Etude http://youtu.be/KyCj7Q55oJ4
using the functional harmony concept, which is easy using the
basso continuo concept, which has no problems with the chromatic
bass over on octave, although it is elder than the more "modern"
functional harmony.

You miss the point though - some pieces of music (parts of pieces of
music, etc.), are more driven by harmony, others more driven by
counterpoint. That's not a conflict, and one is not better or worse
than the other.

Yes, but that does not wipe out the differences between the two
and I have no problem with running both in mind - however, I just
viewed vertical = harmonic aspects of music in what I already wrote.

The point is that folks need mental handles to analyze music just
when they hear or play it and the difference of the models used
makes the difference in the "mental skills".

Again: the functional harmony does not cover chord inversions
"automatically", so one NEEDS to learn this architecture in some
other way and what I am happy with and can recommend is... b.c.

[Mental Handle]

Post by Steve Freides
...
Larry, I shouldn't have started down this road, should I? <sigh>

Too boring?

[Mental Handle]

Post by Murdick

Post by Mental Handle
http://youtu.be/KyCj7Q55oJ4

I wrote a book 30 years ago on playing from figured bass for the guitar.
I never tried to get it published.

Why not try now...

Post by Murdick
It was based on playing four note chords which are quite easy to learn since I based them on five major and three minor larger chord forms. What you would do is play iii, vi, ii, iv, v7, vii7 i in all inversions and in all major and minor keys (Shearer had us do this). Then I had a bunch of progressive exercises with figured bass. It only took a few weeks to learn to do simple pieces of which there are many. Eventually you would bring the four note chords down to three and two note chords and be able to use chords that were not closely related to the original chord forms. It's like learning anything else, you first learn to be competent with a few forms and then expand on that. It's exactly the way I teach teach jazz rhythm chords. You can play every jazz tune ever written with eight four note fingerings - fewer than that if you use shell chords.

This etude covers learning the notes of the chords in this order
# (major 3/5)
b (minor 3/5)
6b (minor)
6# (major)
4/6# (major)
4/6b (minor)
4#/6# (diminished)
6b/7b (diminished 7)
5/6 (major 7)
on each of the 12 notes E F F# G G#/Ab A A#/Bb B c c#/db d d#/e.

There are lots of notations, especially when no key signature
is given explicitely. *) However, the point is to get idea.

I think that vertical hearing in diatonic functional harmony
decreases the richness of the possibilities of Bach like baroque
music while vertical hearing in the major/minor harmony decreases
the even bigger opulence of the possibilities of plain or modal
counterpoint as given in Gradus ad Parnassum by Johann Joseph Fux
http://www.opus28.co.uk/Fux_Gradus.pdf

*)
There are some hints on the different and contemporary notations
here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figured_bass
" Sometimes the accidental is placed after the number rather than
before it...
When sharps or flats are used with key signatures they may have
a slightly different meaning, especially in 17th-century music.
A sharp might be used to cancel a flat in the key signature, or
vice versa, instead of a natural sign..."

[Mental Handle]

Post by Mental Handle
This etude covers learning the notes of the chords in this order
# (major 3/5)
b (minor 3/5)
6b (minor)
6# (major)
4/6# (major)
4/6b (minor)
4#/6# (diminished)

Read:
4#/6b (diminished)

Post by Mental Handle
6b/7b (diminished 7)
5/6 (major 7)
on each of the 12 notes E F F# G G#/Ab A A#/Bb B c c#/db d d#/eb.

[Mental Handle]

Post by Murdick

Post by Mental Handle
http://youtu.be/KyCj7Q55oJ4

I wrote a book 30 years ago on playing from figured bass for the guitar.
...
It's exactly the way I teach teach jazz rhythm chords. You can play
every jazz tune ever written with eight four note fingerings - fewer
than that if you use shell chords.

As you know, I consider this approach as being contradictory to the
objective to become a musician. Lerning chord tabs alone means to learn
graphical patterns, but the music we do is given in notes.

When you learn the vocabular in my way, you can use it on any instrument,
and next to leanrning to really understand what you are going to play
you notice the graphical chord patterns automatically as a combination
of 2 or three intervals. When you think a chord you automatically got
the note names present as you get the result when thinking 12 times 12,
or the like.

Avoid to be playing notes that you do not name (in mind) at least when
practising - you are not getting out your effort by taking the seemingly
easiest road ;)