I can’t believe how lucky I am. I just went to my iPad specifically to search TH-cam to find some thing on Corelli that would teach me how to realize a bass line using his ideas on imitation. This came up first and I am so grateful to be able to learn from you! You have no idea what a gold mine this is for people like me. I’ve only watched the first four minutes so far and agree totally about Bach who, probably after having mastered Corelli’s style, eventually got bored and through stubbornness produced the unconventional Voice leading that can strike us as madness. Thank you so much for this! I can’t wait to watch the whole thing which I will probably do several times!
I made a video on imitation about 2 years ago... ("double counterpoint an imitation") and if you're by any chance interested in imitations above ALL possible moti del bassi you should check out Cherubini's "Marches d'Harmonie"... I'm sure you'll find it on the net... if not: drop me a line per mail, I have a PDF of it
@@en-blanc-et-noirI’d love to have a copy of the Cherubini! Thanks so much for another gem of a video. I’ll be checking out more Corelli for analysis and leave JSB for later!
Haha the scream with the roman numerals killed me. I like the way you always leave plenty of food for thought in each video and very practical examples interesting for both beginners and pros. That was a very nice Allemande-like partimentofication of Corelli, though I'd say Corelli's music is so integrated with partimento a lot of his work is already partimento in all but name. Great music to use as example of how partimento might look "in nature" roam in the wild, RO is indeed a bit over emphasized in certain pedagogy. I think teachers like J.J. Mortensen are just trying to highlight this thing with RO just to make people aware of that paradigm of music of those days that we seem to be out of touch with while someone trained in partimento knows that RO is just for stepwise motion, there are sequences, cadences and other motti bassi that are like separate entities to it. I think this video has done a great job showing just how important cadences are in music and how how cadences not only can be concluding parts of compositions but key building blocks of music itself. Thanks for another great video
Chapters: 00:00 On Corelli and Bach in general 03:37 Checking out Corelli's "Grave" from Op. 1, No. 10 04:52 Cadenza Doppia keyboard tutorial 07:48 The 3 Corellian standard Double Cadences 08:25 Cadence Parcours to train these 08:59 Tutorial on Doppias on the tied bass in 3 original Partimenti 11:20 Drawing a Figuration Prelude from Corelli's "Grave" 12:37 On a baroque concept of tonality and the Rule of the Octave
ปีที่แล้ว +5
Oh, a "controversial video", first calling Bach cringe, then saying RO is just a small part of partimento... You're in dangerous waters, my friend. On a more serious note, this was actually great. I'm going to copy that partimento on double cadences and practice and transpose it (slap sound effect - I'm starting to hear it in my mind every time I think of the word "transpose"). It's just what I needed.
Thanks Krešimir! Cringe: this was more like a „condensed“ translation of J.A. Scheibe‘s critique… the rest: yeah, could be
ปีที่แล้ว
@@en-blanc-et-noir Yeah, it was a joke... BTW, after watching the video for the n-th time, I noticed an error you've made in editing at 5:55. You play the first cadence twice, instead of first playing the last one.
I agree with the statement on rule of the octave. If you look at many partimento sources until mid of 18th century you hardly find such an excessive focus on it. I think the key to understand why R.O. is an important part of this kind of study is to consider it as it was often called: Modulation. Not in modern terminology, modulation was used in the sense that R.O accompaniment is a “natural” harmonisation of a scale degree, if you deviate from it you will probably be in a different key. Thus “modulation” would be the accompaniment that defines the “mode” (the key). This helps to understand why looking at the isolate modules of the Rule is so effective and useful.
Thanks for ya comment, Roberto! Pretty much what I saw in Gasparini‘s treatise, in Heinichen and in Kellner (well there is an obvious tradition/reference)… actually they define the local clauses and their chords - so actually the binary modules - afterwards apply them to the scale… Gasparini even shows a Partimento that demonstrates how to modulate via RO modules
Heard all five cadences. The animations are so funny, makes watching the videos (and learning) so much more fun 😄 great video, always considered Corelli so "understandable" and that's why I enjoy his music a lot
Those last points you made I completely agree with and I've been thinking similar things about the partimento-sphere as of late. But I could never quite articulate this any better than thinking that Nickhil Hogan should just calm down a bit. After several discord server arguments I can see how some trends might point to the trappings of a puritan ideology emerging - partimento sometimes becoming what it sought to destroy regarding roman numeral behaviour. I actually considered writing an essay at uni about this idea of a new dogma of music theory. Of course, all the academics leading the conversation, I'm pretty sure, never stray into these trends - I think their brains are just wired out of that kind of thing. I heard about the whole classical keyboard/partimento improv world around the time I was already well on my path to practising basso continuo stuff. I'd gone through a lot of the Handel book on the subject, and then practiced with Corelli violin sonatas and I've found that continuo habits seem to smooth over where I might otherwise have dedicated a lot of intellectual space to RO.
yo! relatable comment! Thanks a lot. Yeah I think there is a bunch of people that should calm down a bit about stuff, sometimes when you hear people talk you get the impression that - if they could decide - would turn modern institutions into Italian 18th century conservatories with solfeggio and exhaustive fugue writing. And I‘m glad about missing out on the discord discussions with Partimento-redpillers… Well, although I consider myself as kind of being part of that scene/bubble I often feel estranged about what I see and hear (as well musically and scholarly)
@En blanc et noir so true! What I see as the value of partimento, aside from practical improv stuff, is that it gives music analysis much better tools to play with. Along with topic-markedness theories, ritornello structure etc, partimento/schemas offer a much more convincing analysis of music from at least the late 1600s to mid 1800s than the old roman numeral sonata form boomer theories and this is becuase it's based on what we think musicians in that time learned from. We've seen historically informed performance, so get ready for historically informed analysis i guess? And for me this is surely an obvious upgrade for the quality of music analysis. Maybe I'm just too much of a wishy-washy post-modern Humanities student too obsessed with trivialities like reception history or historical context, but grand unifying theories of things I am mostly skeptical of. Like yeh, I've definitely heard a few chaconne basslines in chart topping pop songs and while it's cool and funny to point that out, i don't think it should be seriously taken any further than there. This one discord argument i can thinly remember seemed to be about something like this. While you may be technically correct in finding secret partimento in popsongs, i would much rather an analysis grounded in how that music was made and how the makers understand it as well as the actual audience or other musicians involved. Particularly given the socio-cultural context of classical music and its music-theory, it's a potentially *sus* thing to be doing... Anyway, you should do a video about the Goldberg variation bassline as a ground bass to jam on, an absolute favourite of mine - like a major key chaconne with a turnaround
Yeah, agree: I find Partimento a super innovative and efficient method to analyse and learn music. I'd say historical informed analysis is already a well established field and is been practiced since at least 20 years. But as you're picking up the subject of dogmatism - gate keeping is always a topic in this kind of bubbles and just like in the HIP-scene it exists as well in the Partimento world: some see the RO as the holy grail, and as those people probably see it the other way around: En blanc et noir is the one that unnecessarily complicates things with videos like this one haha. On the other hand I see a strong adhearance to the authority of "Partimento-Rules" (in quotation marks) in general... Demeyere's recent interview on the NHS is a good example for this. If you're interested in this kind developements, the ideology of "authenticity" in the early music scene, give Taruskin's "Text and Act" a read. Clever guy this is! And the Goldberg bass: In hindsight I thought my video on the Chaconne wasn't a very good one, so I think I won't do another one as this topic kinda doesn't fit the video tutorial genre for some reason (or I just didn't do it very well). If you wanna see a more apporachable Chaconne on the Goldberg bass appart from Bach's then Check Händel's HWV 442, implicit tutorial so to say! Cheers!
@@en-blanc-et-noir just re-watching this video for pure fun and I noticed you included a Nick Baragwanath quote at the end which is pretty cool since he was one of my lecturers when I was at uni! (Technically he supervised my dissertation but the less said about that the better). Ngl, he's kinda an intimidating guy in real life, at least compared to the vibe of the other lecturers
I heard six cadences, but that included the evaded one in bar 2. (which also shows another variation/inversion of the doppia, where the first 7-1 soprano close is replaced with a 2-1 tenor close)
now that you pointed it out, i see it. i never really noticed how strange and even dissonant bach's music is compared to his contemporaries. i thought i liked baroque but maybe i just like bach. i like him even more now.
hahah, that term is actually taken from a commentetator calling him that below one of his videos - and this for sure wasn't meant in a bad way - I found that to be very cute somehow. Of course I'm mocking Dr. M in this polemic side note for a bit and take him as representative example of a certain tendency I believe to recognize. But who thinks, this is about sheer provocation didn't even process the basic idea and I wasn't so naive to expect everybody to approve on this. Actually I do believe this is still within the bounderies and I have seen jorunal articles on music theory that did even go further - in the German scientific community. Polemics is and was always part of the exchange of scientific communities and I must admit that in many cases it was the polemical articles or comments I found the most insightful.
@@en-blanc-et-noir Oh, of course! And no worries, I understand that bit this was all in good spirit (although some others maybe took it a little too seriously...).
I counted 5 cadences. You must have taught me well! 😉 For some reason, watching this made me think of the tech industry’s rule of thumb, which is the KISS principle (it stands for “Keep it simple, stupid”!) So it’s out with Bach (too overly complicated) and in with Corelli for Baroque improv 😅 Of course, I’m not denying Bach’s genius, but the lovely simplicity of some of Corelli’s pieces is quite refreshing. I also find them to be generally short and sweet - just the right length.
It depends on your personal settings when signing in but I'm not the right person to ask as I just know Patreon from the creator's side.. I know it's confusing and I'm not very happy about Patreons per work/per month billing model in general. That's all I can say
I’ve watched this a few times now and although I can hear the doppias I still struggle to hear what’s happening when you play such beautiful diminutions/embellishments in the original partimenti. Next video, could you play a few levels of realizations from simple to elegantly elaborate?
@@en-blanc-et-noir Yes! They are beautifully done. For me, and perhaps other novices, it would be clearer to hear a simpler realization first or several types of realizations. Maybe keep this in mind for future tutorials. Thanks!
I love your videos, they're really well made and I find this stuff fascinating. I just feel like I'm missing some required knowledge that keeps me from truly benefiting from these videos. I have been playing piano for 3 years now and I have some basic knowledge of music theory. I understand most of the terminology here but it still feels like these concepts are too advanced for me. Do you have any resources or guidance on what I need to practice/learn in preparation for actually realizing partimenti?
ha, thanks for your comment. Well, yeah I understand. I actally can just recommend a single book that outlines this particular approach from its most basic elements: Job Ijzerman - Harmony, Counterpoint and Partimento (in that very order LOL). I am not at all a textbook fan but this book is definitely a foot in the door for beginners! check it out…
Hey, I do actually teach zoom lessons, and I have some space in the schedule. You'll find my email on the channel's main page, so if you're really interested, just drop me a line and we can make an appointment.
Question about what you said about Bach. You said Bach blurs the components of the piece using all kinds of figurations and dissonances which makes it hard to recognize the components of the pieces. What are those components? Just cadences? What other than cadences is hard to recognize in Bach's music?
By basic components I'm referring to musical schemata and especially contrapuntal scaffoldings of which cadences are just a little share. Whilst e.g. italian composers - and very much Corelli - work with a smaller and well recognizable repertoire of generic figurative patterns. I think one can generalize: Bach is less generic and rather opulent and individual with figurative decorations. If you don't know what a "scaffolding" or a "schema" is then this statement which I made at this point of the video is probably hard to relate to.
@@en-blanc-et-noir I have found definitions of the terms you mentioned but I am not sure how to apply them well yet... Is there any suggestion of a source that will make it clearer to me how to apply those?
If you new to this I'd say check out Job Ijzerman's "Harmony, Counterpoint and Partimento" it's a Partimento inspired textbook approach to music theory. You gotta start somewhere. You can as well browse through my channel as topics like scaffoldings and schematic building blocks are actually part of every video - but of course not systematically. Try out my video on Scarlatti because there you'll see a lot of sequencial scaffoldings discussed, or that one on the Romanesca or "circle of fifths revisited". Cheers
slightly unusual prinner: you gotta tell me what passage you‘re referring to. Although I can already tell that many prinners as a matter of fact are as well fauxbourdons. The prinner is usually specified by a stable 4th degree (5/3-chord) as initial event and two succeding 6th chords, so: from a systematic standpoint one could argue that every prinner is some sort of (though short) fauxbourdon but not every fauxbourdon is a prinner. What do you say to that? Yeah, I know Taneyev‘s treatise on counterpoint as there is a very strange english edition that is hard to understand due to a very unlucky translation that‘s probably distorting a portion of the original intention… Why are you asking?
Your presentation style is just superb, I really like it. However, please, when recording your voice, please record it on mono, it becomes quite distracting to hear it with headphones since your voice keeps switching places, going from right to left...
Couldnt you also consider the figuration prelude you played as a double, instead of a prelude? If i were to read through a suite and you called it a prelude in the book i would have believed you just as much as if you placed it later in the bookand called it just "double". Assuming you used the entire bassline more or less
4-3-2-5-1 with soprano going 2-7-8--7-8 in some manner is honestly sort of bog standard as far as the logic laid out through RO is concerned. Good video
haha, well, I see the point. The thing is, you can explain all kinds o stuff by the RO. In exactly the way you could possibly tag the doppia with roman numerals - but it just doesn’t contribute sth helpful IMO… My point is that practicing the RO in four voices like it´s commonly taught doesn‘t lead to that specific trio fabric. And concerning your exact exmple: I haven‘t seen a single RO teaching a seventh chord on the second degree. I respect your opinion though and I‘m happy about people expressing their thoughts and thx for watching the video
Did anyone write scientific research on the patterns of Corelli and how he developed music, I didn't find something good while making a small research for a bigger research not that much about Corelli
I guess the closest you can get is the Book on Händel's Partimenti by Diergarten/Holtmeier/Menke - it is in German though. But it is definetely the best book available on the market about baroque counterpoint, generic baroque style building blocks and chord grammar. The Book on baroque counterpoint by Johannes Menke (published by Laaber) is as well written with a comparable concept but probably more digestible, it's as well in German. Those books basically give a practical and coherent overview on Italian Trio style as inaugurated by Corelli although not reffering to Corelli explicetely. And of course there is some miscellaneous essays in journals, I know at least one that's dealing with Corelli... "Was fand Corelli an der None?" (as well by Johannes Menke) but I can't tell you the journal right now, but I know this article exists
Notes: Corelli is better to study than Bach. Double cadence explanation. Inveritibility of upper voices. Dopia bass line is not always the same. The syncopation is main feature of cadence doppia.
Wenn Du etwas langsamer sprechen würdest, vor allem in einer Sprache, die nicht Deine Muttersprache ist, hätte das Vorteile. 😉 Ich weiß nicht, wie verständlich das für englische oder amerikanische Muttersprachler ist, aber ich denke, nicht alle sind Muttersprachler, und ein bisschen langsamer würde es vielen erleichtern, Deinen Erklärungen zu folgen. Obwohl ich das Thema interessant finde, habe ich wegen Deiner schnellen Sprechweise dann doch früher abgeschaltet und das Video nicht ganz durchgehört.
hat sich noch keiner beschwert. ich finds cool in dem Tempo, wenns dir nicht taugt, dann sag ich: von mir aus. Du kannst es nie jedem recht machen… Wenn du ein älteres Video von mir schaust, siehst du dass ich langsamer gesprochen habe, das fand ich dann irgendwann einfach lame…
Oh please. The primacy of cadences is in front of us everywhere. You do a great job helping us to realize them better. Then you go Rameau. The RO is not overdone. It's the skeleton for steps in the bass, it's hard to learn in all keys, and you will never improvise without it. Why do you think everybody learned it in 1800? Was it overdone then? It's not everything, and nobody ever claimed it was. Your operatic diatribe about RO emphasis distracts from a nice look at Corelli's lack of steps. This is not a zero sum revival. And no, I'm not a Mortensen acolyte or even a member of his site.
I prefer Heinichen's "Schemata Modorum" (often called "Ambitus" incorrectly) to the Rule of the Octave, for two reasons: 1) No dissonances, only 6 and 5 chords. Heinichen does not see the dissonances as part of the harmony, but as a contrapunctal feature of two voices isolated from the rest of the voices in the polyphonic texture. 2) Harmonising the entire scale in the bass always seemed a bit artificial to me, you almost never find it in real music, and it's really hard to do it without parallel fifths in the inner voices. Even Fenaroli's examples have parallel fifths. Now, I'm not the one to "bitch" about parallel fifths, but I just don't like to make arbitrary excuses why they are allowed in the RO, but not elsewhere. Instead, Heinichen teaches us which consonant chords go with which scale degree in the bass when the bass gradually ascends and descents. The process of how he derives his special rules from general rules is also quite beautiful. And it also builds towards the concept of "Sitz der Akkorde" of Michael Wiedeburg. BTW, the entire Rule of the Octave can be constructed out of cadence clausulae.
@@en-blanc-et-noir corrected. It’s a mere coincidence improvisational skills declined in a mirror arc of the RO’s use in teaching? If you have a beef with Mortensen why not make your point in an historically correct manner: offer to stream a keyboard duel with him. Video memeing his teaching out of any context...so so late 20th century. Serialist.
@ great post. RO is silly name also. Of course it’s seen in fragments, the point is it identifies what key the fragment is in and where it may go. Heinchen’s figures are not so shy about dissonance.
Please, dont stop. I really need you!
Me too!
I can’t believe how lucky I am. I just went to my iPad specifically to search TH-cam to find some thing on Corelli that would teach me how to realize a bass line using his ideas on imitation. This came up first and I am so grateful to be able to learn from you! You have no idea what a gold mine this is for people like me. I’ve only watched the first four minutes so far and agree totally about Bach who, probably after having mastered Corelli’s style, eventually got bored and through stubbornness produced the unconventional Voice leading that can strike us as madness. Thank you so much for this! I can’t wait to watch the whole thing which I will probably do several times!
Well, wait for the bummer😂… But thanks anyway so far!
I made a video on imitation about 2 years ago... ("double counterpoint an imitation") and if you're by any chance interested in imitations above ALL possible moti del bassi you should check out Cherubini's "Marches d'Harmonie"... I'm sure you'll find it on the net... if not: drop me a line per mail, I have a PDF of it
@@en-blanc-et-noirI’d love to have a copy of the Cherubini! Thanks so much for another gem of a video. I’ll be checking out more Corelli for analysis and leave JSB for later!
Haha the scream with the roman numerals killed me.
I like the way you always leave plenty of food for thought in each video and very practical examples interesting for both beginners and pros.
That was a very nice Allemande-like partimentofication of Corelli, though I'd say Corelli's music is so integrated with partimento a lot of his work is already partimento in all but name. Great music to use as example of how partimento might look "in nature" roam in the wild, RO is indeed a bit over emphasized in certain pedagogy. I think teachers like J.J. Mortensen are just trying to highlight this thing with RO just to make people aware of that paradigm of music of those days that we seem to be out of touch with while someone trained in partimento knows that RO is just for stepwise motion, there are sequences, cadences and other motti bassi that are like separate entities to it. I think this video has done a great job showing just how important cadences are in music and how how cadences not only can be concluding parts of compositions but key building blocks of music itself. Thanks for another great video
Chapters:
00:00 On Corelli and Bach in general
03:37 Checking out Corelli's "Grave" from Op. 1, No. 10
04:52 Cadenza Doppia keyboard tutorial
07:48 The 3 Corellian standard Double Cadences
08:25 Cadence Parcours to train these
08:59 Tutorial on Doppias on the tied bass in 3 original Partimenti
11:20 Drawing a Figuration Prelude from Corelli's "Grave"
12:37 On a baroque concept of tonality and the Rule of the Octave
Oh, a "controversial video", first calling Bach cringe, then saying RO is just a small part of partimento... You're in dangerous waters, my friend.
On a more serious note, this was actually great. I'm going to copy that partimento on double cadences and practice and transpose it (slap sound effect - I'm starting to hear it in my mind every time I think of the word "transpose"). It's just what I needed.
Thanks Krešimir! Cringe: this was more like a „condensed“ translation of J.A. Scheibe‘s critique… the rest: yeah, could be
@@en-blanc-et-noir Yeah, it was a joke...
BTW, after watching the video for the n-th time, I noticed an error you've made in editing at 5:55. You play the first cadence twice, instead of first playing the last one.
Nice to meet you here
I agree with the statement on rule of the octave. If you look at many partimento sources until mid of 18th century you hardly find such an excessive focus on it. I think the key to understand why R.O. is an important part of this kind of study is to consider it as it was often called: Modulation. Not in modern terminology, modulation was used in the sense that R.O accompaniment is a “natural” harmonisation of a scale degree, if you deviate from it you will probably be in a different key. Thus “modulation” would be the accompaniment that defines the “mode” (the key). This helps to understand why looking at the isolate modules of the Rule is so effective and useful.
Thanks for ya comment, Roberto! Pretty much what I saw in Gasparini‘s treatise, in Heinichen and in Kellner (well there is an obvious tradition/reference)… actually they define the local clauses and their chords - so actually the binary modules - afterwards apply them to the scale… Gasparini even shows a Partimento that demonstrates how to modulate via RO modules
absolutely fantastic video, thank you
Heard all five cadences. The animations are so funny, makes watching the videos (and learning) so much more fun 😄 great video, always considered Corelli so "understandable" and that's why I enjoy his music a lot
😛 Corelli: absolute ledge
Late comment, but I heard 6?
Great as always, thanks for sharing!
Thanks, Nicola!
Amazing video!
Thanks, Vlad!
Dude, these vids are awesome
Ich könnte dir stundenlang zuhören! ❤ Danke für die interessanten und informativen Beiträge und Grüße aus Dresden.
Grüß dich! Danke danke... Herzliche Grüße ins Elbflorenz - Ich komme aus Bautzen :DDD
Danke - so klein ist die Welt. 😊@@en-blanc-et-noir
Those last points you made I completely agree with and I've been thinking similar things about the partimento-sphere as of late. But I could never quite articulate this any better than thinking that Nickhil Hogan should just calm down a bit. After several discord server arguments I can see how some trends might point to the trappings of a puritan ideology emerging - partimento sometimes becoming what it sought to destroy regarding roman numeral behaviour. I actually considered writing an essay at uni about this idea of a new dogma of music theory. Of course, all the academics leading the conversation, I'm pretty sure, never stray into these trends - I think their brains are just wired out of that kind of thing.
I heard about the whole classical keyboard/partimento improv world around the time I was already well on my path to practising basso continuo stuff. I'd gone through a lot of the Handel book on the subject, and then practiced with Corelli violin sonatas and I've found that continuo habits seem to smooth over where I might otherwise have dedicated a lot of intellectual space to RO.
yo! relatable comment! Thanks a lot. Yeah I think there is a bunch of people that should calm down a bit about stuff, sometimes when you hear people talk you get the impression that - if they could decide - would turn modern institutions into Italian 18th century conservatories with solfeggio and exhaustive fugue writing. And I‘m glad about missing out on the discord discussions with Partimento-redpillers… Well, although I consider myself as kind of being part of that scene/bubble I often feel estranged about what I see and hear (as well musically and scholarly)
@En blanc et noir so true! What I see as the value of partimento, aside from practical improv stuff, is that it gives music analysis much better tools to play with. Along with topic-markedness theories, ritornello structure etc, partimento/schemas offer a much more convincing analysis of music from at least the late 1600s to mid 1800s than the old roman numeral sonata form boomer theories and this is becuase it's based on what we think musicians in that time learned from. We've seen historically informed performance, so get ready for historically informed analysis i guess? And for me this is surely an obvious upgrade for the quality of music analysis. Maybe I'm just too much of a wishy-washy post-modern Humanities student too obsessed with trivialities like reception history or historical context, but grand unifying theories of things I am mostly skeptical of. Like yeh, I've definitely heard a few chaconne basslines in chart topping pop songs and while it's cool and funny to point that out, i don't think it should be seriously taken any further than there. This one discord argument i can thinly remember seemed to be about something like this. While you may be technically correct in finding secret partimento in popsongs, i would much rather an analysis grounded in how that music was made and how the makers understand it as well as the actual audience or other musicians involved. Particularly given the socio-cultural context of classical music and its music-theory, it's a potentially *sus* thing to be doing...
Anyway, you should do a video about the Goldberg variation bassline as a ground bass to jam on, an absolute favourite of mine - like a major key chaconne with a turnaround
Yeah, agree: I find Partimento a super innovative and efficient method to analyse and learn music. I'd say historical informed analysis is already a well established field and is been practiced since at least 20 years. But as you're picking up the subject of dogmatism - gate keeping is always a topic in this kind of bubbles and just like in the HIP-scene it exists as well in the Partimento world: some see the RO as the holy grail, and as those people probably see it the other way around: En blanc et noir is the one that unnecessarily complicates things with videos like this one haha. On the other hand I see a strong adhearance to the authority of "Partimento-Rules" (in quotation marks) in general... Demeyere's recent interview on the NHS is a good example for this.
If you're interested in this kind developements, the ideology of "authenticity" in the early music scene, give Taruskin's "Text and Act" a read. Clever guy this is!
And the Goldberg bass: In hindsight I thought my video on the Chaconne wasn't a very good one, so I think I won't do another one as this topic kinda doesn't fit the video tutorial genre for some reason (or I just didn't do it very well). If you wanna see a more apporachable Chaconne on the Goldberg bass appart from Bach's then Check Händel's HWV 442, implicit tutorial so to say! Cheers!
@@en-blanc-et-noir just re-watching this video for pure fun and I noticed you included a Nick Baragwanath quote at the end which is pretty cool since he was one of my lecturers when I was at uni! (Technically he supervised my dissertation but the less said about that the better). Ngl, he's kinda an intimidating guy in real life, at least compared to the vibe of the other lecturers
Amazing lesson! Corelli is divine perfection 😎😎
Loved it! I completly agree with the (controversial?) points on Bach and the RO.
thanks for support 😝
Great video, thank you for sharing, it's really appreciated
vielen dank für die einordnung der regola! das lag mir schon länger auf der seele.
Danke, mir auch!
Wow, great content!!
❤️ LOVE
I heard six cadences, but that included the evaded one in bar 2. (which also shows another variation/inversion of the doppia, where the first 7-1 soprano close is replaced with a 2-1 tenor close)
agree
now that you pointed it out, i see it. i never really noticed how strange and even dissonant bach's music is compared to his contemporaries. i thought i liked baroque but maybe i just like bach. i like him even more now.
Worthy of careful study!
"Improv Daddy"
How dare you lol
Quite an informative video; I've definitely slept on Corelli, but this makes me want to peek at his oeuvre!
hahah, that term is actually taken from a commentetator calling him that below one of his videos - and this for sure wasn't meant in a bad way - I found that to be very cute somehow. Of course I'm mocking Dr. M in this polemic side note for a bit and take him as representative example of a certain tendency I believe to recognize. But who thinks, this is about sheer provocation didn't even process the basic idea and I wasn't so naive to expect everybody to approve on this. Actually I do believe this is still within the bounderies and I have seen jorunal articles on music theory that did even go further - in the German scientific community. Polemics is and was always part of the exchange of scientific communities and I must admit that in many cases it was the polemical articles or comments I found the most insightful.
@@en-blanc-et-noir Oh, of course! And no worries, I understand that bit this was all in good spirit (although some others maybe took it a little too seriously...).
I counted 5 cadences. You must have taught me well! 😉 For some reason, watching this made me think of the tech industry’s rule of thumb, which is the KISS principle (it stands for “Keep it simple, stupid”!) So it’s out with Bach (too overly complicated) and in with Corelli for Baroque improv 😅 Of course, I’m not denying Bach’s genius, but the lovely simplicity of some of Corelli’s pieces is quite refreshing. I also find them to be generally short and sweet - just the right length.
😅😅😅 KISS principle
I am baffled by Patreon. Having purchased one (other) bundle it now seems completely impossible to buy this one. Is that what you intend?
It depends on your personal settings when signing in but I'm not the right person to ask as I just know Patreon from the creator's side.. I know it's confusing and I'm not very happy about Patreons per work/per month billing model in general. That's all I can say
I’ve watched this a few times now and although I can hear the doppias I still struggle to hear what’s happening when you play such beautiful diminutions/embellishments in the original partimenti. Next video, could you play a few levels of realizations from simple to elegantly elaborate?
You mean in the Partimento examples? lol you find them THAT extraordinary? I actually draw everything from the basic trio. :D
@@en-blanc-et-noir Yes! They are beautifully done. For me, and perhaps other novices, it would be clearer to hear a simpler realization first or several types of realizations. Maybe keep this in mind for future tutorials. Thanks!
Wish I could shred crispy chains like you G
haha! shreddin' crispy chains is my passion
I love your videos, they're really well made and I find this stuff fascinating. I just feel like I'm missing some required knowledge that keeps me from truly benefiting from these videos. I have been playing piano for 3 years now and I have some basic knowledge of music theory. I understand most of the terminology here but it still feels like these concepts are too advanced for me. Do you have any resources or guidance on what I need to practice/learn in preparation for actually realizing partimenti?
ha, thanks for your comment. Well, yeah I understand. I actally can just recommend a single book that outlines this particular approach from its most basic elements: Job Ijzerman - Harmony, Counterpoint and Partimento (in that very order LOL). I am not at all a textbook fan but this book is definitely a foot in the door for beginners! check it out…
@@en-blanc-et-noir This is great man, thanks.
Where are you based? I'd kill to have a beer and discuss composition with you.
Sounds great! I live in a small town in Germany, named Detmold :D
@@en-blanc-et-noir If you teach zoom lessons, I'm based in Miami.
Hey, I do actually teach zoom lessons, and I have some space in the schedule. You'll find my email on the channel's main page, so if you're really interested, just drop me a line and we can make an appointment.
Question about what you said about Bach. You said Bach blurs the components of the piece using all kinds of figurations and dissonances which makes it hard to recognize the components of the pieces.
What are those components? Just cadences? What other than cadences is hard to recognize in Bach's music?
By basic components I'm referring to musical schemata and especially contrapuntal scaffoldings of which cadences are just a little share. Whilst e.g. italian composers - and very much Corelli - work with a smaller and well recognizable repertoire of generic figurative patterns. I think one can generalize: Bach is less generic and rather opulent and individual with figurative decorations. If you don't know what a "scaffolding" or a "schema" is then this statement which I made at this point of the video is probably hard to relate to.
@@en-blanc-et-noir
I have found definitions of the terms you mentioned but I am not sure how to apply them well yet... Is there any suggestion of a source that will make it clearer to me how to apply those?
If you new to this I'd say check out Job Ijzerman's "Harmony, Counterpoint and Partimento" it's a Partimento inspired textbook approach to music theory. You gotta start somewhere. You can as well browse through my channel as topics like scaffoldings and schematic building blocks are actually part of every video - but of course not systematically.
Try out my video on Scarlatti because there you'll see a lot of sequencial scaffoldings discussed, or that one on the Romanesca or "circle of fifths revisited".
Cheers
@@en-blanc-et-noir Thank you man! Will look into all those, I am not used to this sort of "new music theory" discovery.
Check it, spread it, but don't become dogmatic about it :DDD
fauxbourdon? really? isn't it just a slightly unusual prinner?
do you know the treatises of Taneyev by any chance?´
slightly unusual prinner: you gotta tell me what passage you‘re referring to. Although I can already tell that many prinners as a matter of fact are as well fauxbourdons. The prinner is usually specified by a stable 4th degree (5/3-chord) as initial event and two succeding 6th chords, so: from a systematic standpoint one could argue that every prinner is some sort of (though short) fauxbourdon but not every fauxbourdon is a prinner. What do you say to that?
Yeah, I know Taneyev‘s treatise on counterpoint as there is a very strange english edition that is hard to understand due to a very unlucky translation that‘s probably distorting a portion of the original intention… Why are you asking?
Your presentation style is just superb, I really like it. However, please, when recording your voice, please record it on mono, it becomes quite distracting to hear it with headphones since your voice keeps switching places, going from right to left...
Thank you for that hint! I know what the actual problem is! Trying to fix that! :D
Couldnt you also consider the figuration prelude you played as a double, instead of a prelude? If i were to read through a suite and you called it a prelude in the book i would have believed you just as much as if you placed it later in the bookand called it just "double".
Assuming you used the entire bassline more or less
yep, I can relate to that.
4-3-2-5-1 with soprano going 2-7-8--7-8 in some manner is honestly sort of bog standard as far as the logic laid out through RO is concerned. Good video
haha, well, I see the point. The thing is, you can explain all kinds o stuff by the RO. In exactly the way you could possibly tag the doppia with roman numerals - but it just doesn’t contribute sth helpful IMO… My point is that practicing the RO in four voices like it´s commonly taught doesn‘t lead to that specific trio fabric. And concerning your exact exmple: I haven‘t seen a single RO teaching a seventh chord on the second degree. I respect your opinion though and I‘m happy about people expressing their thoughts and thx for watching the video
The link to the Cadenza Doppia patterns does not seem to be in the description
what do you mean exactly?
@@en-blanc-et-noir at 7:58 you mention J. Menke's chart and it says: "link in description".
@@en-blanc-et-noir You mentioned a link in the description for variations of the Cadenza Doppia but I don't see the link
@@en-blanc-et-noir at 7:59 the Doppia chart but I don't see a link
Link now in the box... I'm sorry! It's an article, but if you scroll down you'll find the chart!
Did anyone write scientific research on the patterns of Corelli and how he developed music, I didn't find something good while making a small research for a bigger research not that much about Corelli
I guess the closest you can get is the Book on Händel's Partimenti by Diergarten/Holtmeier/Menke - it is in German though. But it is definetely the best book available on the market about baroque counterpoint, generic baroque style building blocks and chord grammar. The Book on baroque counterpoint by Johannes Menke (published by Laaber) is as well written with a comparable concept but probably more digestible, it's as well in German. Those books basically give a practical and coherent overview on Italian Trio style as inaugurated by Corelli although not reffering to Corelli explicetely. And of course there is some miscellaneous essays in journals, I know at least one that's dealing with Corelli... "Was fand Corelli an der None?" (as well by Johannes Menke) but I can't tell you the journal right now, but I know this article exists
@@en-blanc-et-noir Thanks
Notes: Corelli is better to study than Bach. Double cadence explanation. Inveritibility of upper voices. Dopia bass line is not always the same. The syncopation is main feature of cadence doppia.
Heeeeeyy!!!
Richardus, what's up?
@@en-blanc-et-noir I wrote you an E-mail
:DDD Yeahh
I only heard two.
Wenn Du etwas langsamer sprechen würdest, vor allem in einer Sprache, die nicht Deine Muttersprache ist, hätte das Vorteile. 😉 Ich weiß nicht, wie verständlich das für englische oder amerikanische Muttersprachler ist, aber ich denke, nicht alle sind Muttersprachler, und ein bisschen langsamer würde es vielen erleichtern, Deinen Erklärungen zu folgen. Obwohl ich das Thema interessant finde, habe ich wegen Deiner schnellen Sprechweise dann doch früher abgeschaltet und das Video nicht ganz durchgehört.
hat sich noch keiner beschwert. ich finds cool in dem Tempo, wenns dir nicht taugt, dann sag ich: von mir aus. Du kannst es nie jedem recht machen… Wenn du ein älteres Video von mir schaust, siehst du dass ich langsamer gesprochen habe, das fand ich dann irgendwann einfach lame…
bach is peak cringe in baroque sweat lobbys
Oh please. The primacy of cadences is in front of us everywhere. You do a great job helping us to realize them better. Then you go Rameau. The RO is not overdone. It's the skeleton for steps in the bass, it's hard to learn in all keys, and you will never improvise without it. Why do you think everybody learned it in 1800? Was it overdone then? It's not everything, and nobody ever claimed it was. Your operatic diatribe about RO emphasis distracts from a nice look at Corelli's lack of steps. This is not a zero sum revival. And no, I'm not a Mortensen acolyte or even a member of his site.
I stumble upon the term „bitching“
I prefer Heinichen's "Schemata Modorum" (often called "Ambitus" incorrectly) to the Rule of the Octave, for two reasons:
1) No dissonances, only 6 and 5 chords. Heinichen does not see the dissonances as part of the harmony, but as a contrapunctal feature of two voices isolated from the rest of the voices in the polyphonic texture.
2) Harmonising the entire scale in the bass always seemed a bit artificial to me, you almost never find it in real music, and it's really hard to do it without parallel fifths in the inner voices. Even Fenaroli's examples have parallel fifths. Now, I'm not the one to "bitch" about parallel fifths, but I just don't like to make arbitrary excuses why they are allowed in the RO, but not elsewhere. Instead, Heinichen teaches us which consonant chords go with which scale degree in the bass when the bass gradually ascends and descents. The process of how he derives his special rules from general rules is also quite beautiful. And it also builds towards the concept of "Sitz der Akkorde" of Michael Wiedeburg.
BTW, the entire Rule of the Octave can be constructed out of cadence clausulae.
@@en-blanc-et-noir corrected. It’s a mere coincidence improvisational skills declined in a mirror arc of the RO’s use in teaching? If you have a beef with Mortensen why not make your point in an historically correct manner: offer to stream a keyboard duel with him. Video memeing his teaching out of any context...so so late 20th century. Serialist.
@ great post. RO is silly name also. Of course it’s seen in fragments, the point is it identifies what key the fragment is in and where it may go. Heinchen’s figures are not so shy about dissonance.