Harmonic Progression in Baroque Music

[steve jones]

I must admit, Im having a tough time fully understanding harmonic progression in Barque music. It feel that I have a reasonable understand of tonal harmony in post Baroque styles, but the polyphonic nature of this music (or much of it) seems to make the identification of progressions very difficult.

Indeed, given that it is directly descended from Renaissance styles, it seems  unlikely that harmonic progression in the modern sense is even present! Authentic cadences seem to be used regularly, but along with I, V opening statements. But how to judge the harmonic progression during more the rest of the music? I find this problem no more apparent than in 2 part works like Bach's Inventions, but have similar level of difficult with more immitive counterpoint such as his Fugues.

Obviously, the mistake I am making is to attempt to analyse this music by modern homophonic standards. It seems clear that this kind of music features functional harmony, but Im unsure as to how best this can be understood. From what Iv studied of Bach's Inventions - it would appear that a sort of balance exsists between melodic and harmonic emphasis. Sometimes the emphasis will swing towards the contrapunctal progression towards an authentic cadence, while other times focusing on melodic inventions and transformations.

But I do still often find myself lost. Without the guidence of identifiable triad progressions, I find myself unsure of where to take voices. I mean, I studied Fux for quite some time, and it was great in as much as it helped me with voiceleading and whatnot. But I remain lost with giving music a sense of forward motion.

This may be an impossible question to ask, and perhaps this is even the ultimate million dollar question, but how is it that composers like Bach can achieve this forward motion in works like his Fugues which seem to deal primarily with melodic invention and development? Indeed, everything I have read on Bach seems to focus on this rather than on the harmonic aspects.

If no such guidence exsists, then would you agree that music of this style is significantly more challenging to compose that the later homophonic styles (which can be based of set forms and progressions to a much great extent)?

BB

[stevehopwood]

Pre-20th century melodies written in the Western classical tradition have a strong harmonic basis. Even when unaccompanied, these melodies have an implied harmonic structure that can be 'heard' given sufficient experience. It is this lack of a solid, implied harmonic structure that makes so many students' attempt at melody writing lack coherence and shape.

Counterpoint also depends on this harmonic structure. Most harmony until the 20th century was 'functional' i.e. each chord had a particular purpose. For example:
I, IV, V are the primary chords that are used most.
V is the 'tension' chord
I is the 'resting' chord that resolves the tension of V
VI is an occasional alternative to I, to provide colour
II(b(7)) preceeds V at a cadence
and so on

One aspect of Baroque harmony that confuses the inexperienced is the speed of harmonic change. Within the same piece, there can be passages where the harmony moves once a bar; others where the harmony moves twice a beat. This create difficulties for a student trying to work out the underlying harmony to a piece of counterpoint.

You have looked at the Inventions, Steve, so try this exercise with the one in C - begins semiquaver rest then 7 more semins C D E F D E C in the right hand.

Imagine you wanted to write and orchestral accompaniment to the keyboard part. This harmonic structure would work well:

- Bar 1: I for 3 beats, then V7d - Ib on last 2 quavers. Alternatively keep I for the whole bar.
- Bar 2: V for 3 beats, then IVb - Vb on last 2 quavers. Alternatively keep V for the whole bar.
- Bar 3: Chord changes on each quaver, so VIb, Vb, I, II(b), III or Ib, IIIb, VI, V7b

Maybe this simple example will help you look at more complex contrapuntal structures. Did it help?

Steve 

[steve jones]

Steve,

Thanks for the advice, very helpful.

When I looked first at the C Major Invention, it was clear that certain parts did imply harmony. For example, you mentioned the main subject - rest, C, D, E, F, D, E, C

I was able to I, IV, I, V under the first statement quite nicely, followed by the same on the dominant. Indeed, where chords are implied, for instance at cadential points, I was able to identify them. Other times, I found it more difficult! Maybe I just need to stick at this a little longer and they will become apparent. For instance, I found it difficult to fit chord into b3-4. Here the counterpoint in the lower voice seems to make a series of ascending tenths when coupled with the transformed motif in the treble.

Btw, I know what you mean about the swift harmonic rhythm. I did some choral analysis before beginning the inventions and they were changing chord every beat.

Heres a rough midi of what I have for 'exposition' if I can call it that. Please ignore the voicing of the chords, as this was just a little experiement to try and identify the progression:

https://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=B4AD2CFF3F61A30F


Cheers,

SJ

[stevehopwood]

You have the idea Steve. Your choice of (what sounds to me like) I-IV-I for the first 3 beats of bar 1 show how melody that seems free of a harmonic basis is actually not so independent after all.

I arrived at my harmonic structure by aurally assessing the notes in bar 1. Altogether, there are 11 notes that belong to chord 1, out of 18 in the bar. Added to that, composers using functional harmony would establish a strong sense of tonality from the outset.

So, why did I not choose IV for the second beat? Because only one of the four notes actually belongs in chord IV. I am not criticising your response here, you understand, but trying to explain my thought processes. In fact, contrary to my assessment that there is a slow harmonic movement in the first two bars, it is entirely possible to come up with much quicker movement through more frequent chord changes.

Students (are usually forced against their natural will to ) to study the harmonies Bach used in his Chorales because they are the best grounding in functional harmony it is possible to gain. From this, they gain an understanding of the harmonic basis of Western classical music until the 20th century. Once you know this harmony, you can apply that knowledge in all sorts of analytical circumstances.

You have the knowledge and just now need the confidence to explore and come to your own conclusions. And, of course, you can always bounce your ideas off people here 

Steve 

[steve jones]

Indeed, I have studied a few of the Bach harmonized chorals, but more form a voiceleading perspective. My knowledge of functional harmony comes more from the Classical and early Romantic composers. For instance, Iv learnt boat loads from Chopin on chromatic harmony!

But back to the Invention...

I wonder if Bach himself had a clear idea of the underlying harmonies in his imitative counterpoint works? Im sure he did, but sometimes it appears quite ambigious.

For opening statement of the Invention in C clearly states I, V, with the subject in C and then in G. I guess when he 'invented' this subject, he had this very function in mind for the prime version.

But its in his 16th note scale runs that I get confused most (such as in Invention in F No . When both voices descend together by step in semiquavers, who is one to judge the underlying harmony? By the interval that seperates the voices maybe?

I tend to pick consider these runs as diminuations, and see them as arpeggio's on the strong beats. So - C, D, E, F, G would be C, E, G = C Major.

Im not sure if this is a safe way to play ball or not to be honest! But if there is no other indication of the underlying harmony, then I guess it is as good a guide as any.

With the respect to the second beat of the Invention in C, I have pondered this myself. The IV sounds right to be, although the later notes dont fit. I tried C , F, C allowing the F and C quaver durations, then on the next beat using G (V) which almost fits.

One thing that I love about this initial statement is who on the dominant the treble finishes with G, F, G, implying the dominant 7. Very subtle, but its there! Im beginning to see why the great composers valued these pieces so highly.

SJ

[stevehopwood]

Indeed, I have studied a few of the Bach harmonized chorals, but more form a voiceleading perspective. My knowledge of functional harmony comes more from the Classical and early Romantic composers. For instance, Iv learnt boat loads from Chopin on chromatic harmony!

This is far more interesting than studying the harmony of the Chorales, but is in effect 'putting the cart before the horse'.

Classical period harmony was Baroque harmony slowed down. Romantic chromatic harmony extended this basic language - I can still trace the functional chord structure easily through all of the Chopin I play.

But back to the Invention...

I wonder if Bach himself had a clear idea of the underlying harmonies in his imitative counterpoint works? Im sure he did, but sometimes it appears quite ambigious.

It is ambiguous because there are so many different possibilities. What students do is come to their own conclusions - they learn so much from doing this.

For opening statement of the Invention in C clearly states I, V, with the subject in C and then in G. I guess when he 'invented' this subject, he had this very function in mind for the prime version.

I doubt whether either melody or harmony came first. Good melody had a good harmonic basis, so they would both have come into existence together.

But its in his 16th note scale runs that I get confused most (such as in Invention in F No . When both voices descend together by step in semiquavers, who is one to judge the underlying harmony? By the interval that seperates the voices maybe?

I tend to pick consider these runs as diminuations, and see them as arpeggio's on the strong beats. So - C, D, E, F, G would be C, E, G = C Major.

Im not sure if this is a safe way to play ball or not to be honest! But if there is no other indication of the underlying harmony, then I guess it is as good a guide as any.

That's it. Sometimes the 'harmony notes' come off the main beat, say when there are apoggiaturas and accented passing notes - that is where knowledge and instinct come in handy.

In the case of the F major, the harmony is obvious and clear. 5 bars (!) or chord I followed by VIb in bar 6. VIb is a 'pivot' chord, becoming IIb on the way to eventually establishing C major at bar 12.

With the respect to the second beat of the Invention in C, I have pondered this myself. The IV sounds right to be, although the later notes dont fit. I tried C , F, C allowing the F and C quaver durations, then on the next beat using G (V) which almost fits.

One thing that I love about this initial statement is who on the dominant the treble finishes with G, F, G, implying the dominant 7. Very subtle, but its there! Im beginning to see why the great composers valued these pieces so highly.

SJ

What really matters here is that you are opening your mind to fresh ideas, not whether you are 'correct' or not. Put 15 different analyists in a room and get them to analyze a piece, and you will get 15 different answers 

Have fun.

Steve