music

wozy

2026年5月24日 00:37

Music study

Species

What It Teaches

1st species (note-against-note)

Perfect balance of consonances

2nd species (2:1)

How passing notes form natural dissonances

3rd species (4:1)

Flowing melodies creating implied chords

4th species (syncopation)

How suspensions create tension–release

5th species (florid)

Combining everything into free counterpoint

Species

Rhythmic Ratio (Counterpoint : Cantus Firmus)

Primary Rhythmic Pattern

Dissonance Rule & Focus

Compositional Meaning (What it Teaches)

First

1:1

All Whole Notes (Note-against-Note)

Must be Consonant. No dissonances allowed.

Focuses on perfect consonance, smooth voice leading, and melodic independence.

Second

2:1

Half Notes against Whole Notes

Weak beats may be a dissonant passing tone.

Introduces rhythmic variety and the use of unaccented dissonance for melodic flow.

Third

4:1

Quarter Notes against Whole Notes

Weakest beats may be dissonant passing or neighbor tones.

Teaches greater melodic elaboration and complexity through stepwise motion.

Fourth

1:1 (Syncopated)

Half Notes tied across the barline

Strong beat dissonance via Suspension (must be prepared and resolved down by step).

Masters the creation of tension and release using accented dissonance and syncopation.

Fifth

Mixed/Florid

Mix of Whole, Half, and Quarter Notes

Combines all dissonance treatments (passing, neighbor, and suspension).

The culmination of the species, teaching free rhythmic variety and the construction of idiomatic, flowing melodies.

My goal: remember the names of the 88 sounds!

The focus shifts completely to the horizontal plane: Melody is king, and harmony is the byproduct of simultaneously independent melodies.The vertical chords that occur at any moment are the result of the melodic lines simply crossing paths.

@danielmeirsman

2 years ago

The first four notes are an exercise in Johann Joseph Fuch's book on counterpoint. It is as if Mozart is showing us what unimaginable level of mastery he has achieved compared to his first confrontation with the exercise at a probably young age.

Mozart often composed a melody line and a bass line in draft format, and then considered the piece to be finished. (The filling in of the middle harmony parts was just “busy work” that he was able to do probably as easily as he breathed air. So the entire instrumentation was created on the spot has he wrote out a final copy.)

Melody and Bass First: His drafts often prioritized the main melody line and the bass line. The internal harmony, accompanying figures, and full instrumentation were sometimes "filled in" later during the final transcription, demonstrating his mastery of harmony and counterpoint

The Rochlitz letter[edit]

An important source for earlier conceptions concerning Mozart's composition method was the work of the early 19th century publisher Friedrich Rochlitz. He propagated anecdotes about Mozart that were long assumed authentic, but with more recent research are now widely doubted.[25] Among other things, Rochlitz published a letter,[26] purporting to be by Mozart but now considered fraudulent,[27] concerning his method of composition. This letter was taken as evidence concerning two points considered dubious by modern scholars. One is the idea that Mozart composed in a kind of passive mental process, letting the ideas simply come to him:

When I am, as it were, completely myself, entirely alone, and of good cheer; say traveling in a carriage, or walking after a good meal, or during the night when I cannot sleep; it is on such occasions that my ideas flow best and most abundantly. Whence and how they come I know not, nor can I force them. Those ideas that please me, I retain in ... memory, and am accustomed, as I have been told, to hum them to myself. If I continue in this way, it soon occurs to me, how I may turn this or that morsel to account, so as to make a good dish of it, that is to say, agreeably to the rules of counterpoint, to the peculiarities of the various instruments, &c.[28]

Rochlitz's forged letter also was used in earlier study to bolster the (apparently false) story that Mozart could compose relying entirely on his memory, without the use of keyboard or sketches:

All this fires my soul, and provided I am not disturbed, my subject enlarges itself, becomes methodized and defined, and the whole, though it be long, stands almost finished and complete in my mind, so that I can survey it, like a fine picture or a beautiful statue, at a glance. Nor do I hear in my imagination the parts successively, but I hear them, as it were, all at once... When I proceed to write down my ideas, I take out of the bag of my memory, if I may use that phrase, what has previously been collected into it, in the way I have mentioned. For this reason, the committing to paper is done quickly enough, for everything is, as I said before, already finished; and it rarely differs on paper from what it was in my imagination.

Like you played a E5 ,and i can tell the name

Or you write G3 and i can play the sound that this symbol referring to

“巴赫开始教授作曲时”，福克尔说，“不像那个时代的其他音乐教师那样，直接照本宣科地讲授生涩的对位法，更是很少让学生计算音程关系，他认为这只是理论家和乐器工匠的事，作曲家用不着算得那么清楚。他一开始就直接讲授为四个声部配通奏低音技巧，着重强调各个声部的声音构成和彼此间的搭配关系，他认为只有这样才能最直观地理解和声究竟如何构造、如何行进。接下来他就直接进入众赞歌。他先给学生提供一个男低音声部，让学生加进女低音和男高音声部。熟练后他就直接让学生自己写男低音声部。他非常强调和声的纯正感，要求各声部自然和谐地行进，且每个声部中要有流畅的旋律浮现出来。”

巴赫严格禁止学生在键盘上进行创作。他把这样的作曲家谑称作“键盘骑士”；巴赫用这个绰号来形容那些弹奏即兴时还要盯着手指和琴键，而不是按照自己的思路来弹琴的人。

Though Bach didn’t take on a lot of students, the ones he did take on he would clearly admonish NOT to compose while sitting at the keyboard.

He referred to people who did that as “Knights of the Keyboard,” and he didn’t mean it in a good way. He told his students that improvisation is the heart of muscianship, and that if you can improvise on the keyboard, you should be able to improvise on paper just as easily.

The notion that Bach, as a "Klavierritter" ("Knight of the Keyboard"), would first 'plink' out the notes on a keyboard before writing them down in keyboard tablature, sounds like an episode lifted from a biography of Bach written for little children. An entirely different matter, of course, is the report that Bach, after having composed certain partitas for harpsichord (without recourse to a keyboard while composing), would subsequently, late at night, work out fingerings at the keyboard to masure the compositions were playable. This would not detract from the notion that many, or at least most of his keyboard compositions may have undergone a two-stage composition process: first as improvisations, then in writing down and modifying what he had originally improvised. For the latter he would not need to have a keyboard present. However, once he had completed this improvisation-followed-by-writing-down process, he would return to the keyboard to determine if what he had ultimately 'composed' as resulting from improvisations was playable or not. Hence, we have this report about 'working out the fingerings' of pieces at the keyboard of music freshly composed on paper. This may have led him to change certain notes or the placement of these (Oktavbrechung, etc.) as well. This, of course, is a far cry from 'plinking' out the notes and notating them immediately, whether in normal notation or keyboard tablature, whenever a musical idea came to his mind,

Sometimes, too, Bach wrote down works that he’d improvised the day before. We tend to think of classical and baroque music as being set in stone because that’s how we’ve inherited it, but improvisation was much valued in the classical and baroque periods, and the improvisatory skill of the great composers was legendary. Mozart’s contemporaries said that you couldn’t grasp the magnitude of his genius until you’d heard him improvise (but then, there’s a contemporary account of how once, when he had been improvising the most sublime music, he suddenly jumped up and leapt from table to table meowing). Beethoven’s improvisations were famous — at one point, when he became irritated by a composer who had played a set of variations on a theme of Beethoven’s, he turned the music upside down and improvised brilliantly for an hour. And Bach himself was the only composer who could improvise a six-part fugue, a feat of mind-boggling complexity.

莫扎特的机制和天才，还体现在他作曲的方式，我们在莫扎特的传记电影里面看到，他最喜欢一边玩弹子球，一边作曲，有时候推出一个球等它弹回来，看看自己在这一段时间里面可以写下几个音符，他几乎可以随时随地地作曲，在巡回演出的马车上、在小酒馆、小旅店，而且他作曲可不是一行一行写乐谱，而是整个乐队的乐器，同时在他大脑中演奏，几乎就像建筑一样，所有的音符立体地出现在他心里。也就是说他的内心听觉非常好，所以我们总是看到他写得飞快，想都不用想，其实这些音符早就同时出现在他心里了

柴可夫斯基在日记中曾写道：“当《天鹅湖》的主题在我脑中浮现时，它只是一团朦胧的忧伤，但我能‘听’到它应该用弦乐演奏，节奏要像天鹅划水般平稳——内心的听觉帮我抓住了它的轮廓。”

复调音乐的精髓在于“多个旋律的平等对话”，如巴赫的赋格曲中，主题与对题在不同声部交替出现，既要有各自的独立性，又要相互呼应。此时，内心听觉就像“多轨录音机”，能同时“播放”不同声部的旋律，并清晰判断它们的音程关系、节奏配合是否合理。巴赫曾说：“写赋格时，我不需要乐器，因为我的内心能同时听到每个声部的走向，就像亲眼看到它们在纸上行走。

柏辽兹在《配器法》中强调：“优秀的配器不是盲目堆砌乐器，而是在动笔前，就能在心中清晰听到每种乐器组合的效果。”

正如斯特拉文斯基所说：“真正的作曲，是先在心中完成一场完整的演奏，然后再把它‘抄写’到纸上。”

当学生在键盘技术上取得一些进步后，作曲课就开始了。巴赫在教授作曲时采取的方法更加独特。他没有因循当时的惯例从严格而无用的对位法开始教学，也不把学生的注意力引向计算声音的关系，而是一开始要求学生学习持续低音上的四声部乐曲，特别强调要写出各个声部，用以突显完美的和声。然后，他转而讲授圣咏，他会先写出男低音部分，然后让学生谱成女低音和男高音的部分，在达到标准后，他会逐渐允许学生谱写男低音声部。以上这些作曲手段他让学生习惯在纸上完成，就像他本人那样，而不是借助键盘来创作，以便发展他们的内心听觉。他常常说：“设想有好几个人在交谈。”每一个声音都有它自己的色调，都有它本身的特性，然而谈话的主题却是共同的，他始终强调和声的纯正，以及每个声部的自然关系和流畅的旋律。

乘坐马车旅行时，在饭后散步时，或者在睡不着觉的夜晚。

那是想法最多的时候。

-莫扎特-

做很多事情的捷径是一次只做一件事。

-莫扎特-

即使是崇高的智慧、想象力，或两者兼而有之，也无法形成天才。

爱，爱，爱。

这就是天才的本质。

-莫扎特-

不旅行的音乐家不快乐。

-莫扎特-

我不在乎别人的赞美或批评。我只是遵循自己的感受。

做很多事情的捷径是一次只做一件事

作曲已经实现了，只是还没有写到纸上

C. P. E. Bach

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach’s philosophical approach to music was partially influenced by his German-Protestant upbringing and ultimately echoed the Enlightenment view of music as an expression of human emotion, as exemplified through his use of the Empfindsamer Stil. [P2]

He saw that music had the power to affect one's emotions and that it was a vital tool for the church. [P3]

J. S. Bach saw music’s potential to touch man’s soul.7 [P4]

Because of this orthodox view of music, J. S. Bach never attempted to portray human emotion explicitly or align with philosophical discord of his times [P5]

This education opened Emanuel's eyes to a new way of thinking, in which man and reasoning became the key to creativity and knowledge. [P6]

human emotion and mental states could dictate musical composition and were directly displayed in the music itself [P7]

Human affection could be displayed through various keys, meters, melodic figures, harmonic progressions, and rhythmic passages. [P7]

Descartes explained that in music, large, open intervals could typify happy emotions, and smaller, closed intervals could represent sad emotions. While this notion was not revolutionary, Descartes was the first person to ever rationalize these ideas and to categorize them. [P7]

Rameau strongly believed that music should be created through reason and logical process, and not simply as a result or display of emotion. In his eyes, music was a process that could only be described using musical terms; any other explanation was pure fantasy and illogical. [P8]

However, more important to Emanuel than logic and proportionality was the connection between emotions and music expanding the Enlightenment ideals set forth by Descartes [P9]

Versuch über [P9]

Versuch [P9]

My chief effort, especially in recent years, has been directed towards both playing and composing as songfully as possible for clavier, notwithstanding its lack of sustaining power….It seems to me that music primarily must touch the heart, and the clavierist never can accomplish that through mere bluster, drumming, and arpeggiating, at least not in my opinion. [P11]

While J. S. Bach could not actively endorse music as a means of expressing human emotion due to his own religious convictions, he showed Emanuel the potential music had to deeply touch the human soul [P14]

Expanding on his father’s views, Emanuel justified the expansion of music to directly express human emotions, allowing for music both inside and outside of the church to be used to deeply impact the lives and emotions of audiences worldwide. [P14]

Bach and his father [JS Bach] were acquainted with Rameau’s theory, which has become the basis of most of the modern writings on harmony, but they disagreed with it. This was made known in a letter to Kirnberger, cited in his Kunst des reinen Satzes (Pt. II Sect. 3, p.188): “You may proclaim that my and my deceased father’s basic principles are contrary to Rameau’s.”Extended consideration had been given by members of the Bach school to the new theories of the fundamental bass, the suppositional root, the triad as the mother of all chords, and seventh as the origin of all dissonances.Bach’s rejection of Rameau can be traced largely to the fact that the latter had pronounced a theory, whereas thorough bass was essentially a practice

Chords, regardless of their origin, are grouped according to the definitive interval that they contain. For example, all chords that contain sevenths are treated successively. They are the chord of the seventh, the seven-six, the seven-four, and the seven-four-two chords. Although only the first of these is a chord in the Rameau sense, all are chords in Bach’s sense.The student’s task was to locate at the keyboard the definitive interval and then to bring under his fingers the various accompanying intervals. Identification of the root, real or supposed, did not aid him in his direct gauging of intervals above a given bass tone.The crucial difference between Rameau and Bach is most evident in those places where Philipp Emanuel explains the nature of chords. Bach’s rests on it s behaviour. Repeatedly he cites context, voice-leading, rhythmic and melodic manipulation as the critical chord-shaping factors. Thus there are two kinds of six-four chords, those that retard a following five-three, and those that retard a following six-three. Where Rameau calls the two identical because their roots are identical, Bach differentiates between them because their behavior is different.Cadences existed long before Rameau. In fact, cadential processes of Renaissance music are the embryo which gradually evolved into the common practice harmonic functions that Rameau systematized.

this also shows why modern chord symbols can sometimes be a bit misleading - they give more importance to the "root" of the chord than the bass, which sometimes makes you miss obvious connections between progressions.

I've heard that functional harmony is a posterior creation so that amateurs could play around, whereas counterpoint was the subject professionals were formed in.

It was precisely on account of the burgeoning number of sig natures, then, that Rameau conceived his theory of the fundamental bass. Through the notion of chordal inversion (as well as ancillary manipulations such as supposition, suspension, ,double employ ment," etc.), Rameau was able to reduce most chord signatures to the two fundamental types mentioned above: the triad and seventh. Fur ther, he was by this means able to show how most chord successions followed a limited number of cadential prototypes (mostly with fifth motion in the fundamental bass). The fundamental bass thus offered a clarification and simplification of harmonic practice with immediate heuristic value. For those thorough-bass theorists who adopted Rameau's idea, a typical signature table would begin with the com mon triad and its two inversions (5/3, 6/3, and 6/4), the seventh chord and its three inversions (7, 6/5, 4/3, and 4/2) and then chords in which notes were added to the seventh (9, 11, 13), altered chromatic ally (diminished and augmented chords of all types), and modified by anticipations or suspensions (4-3, 9-8, 7/4/2-8/5/3, etc.). Through this rigorously generative procedure, all figured-bass signatures could be traced back to the two fundamental chord types the student needed to keep in mind. All this naturally made the fingering and memorization of thorough-bass signatures easier for the student. Rameau, I should add, did not himself fully develop this idea systema tically in his own thorough-bass instructors.10

By 1792 Turk was able to defend his own thorough-bass method by pointing out that the vast majority of music teachers had adopted - like himself- the ,Kirnberger" two-chord system. This system, Turk goes on to point out, had proven effective in teaching the thorough bass as well as accounting for the practice of such masters as Johann Sebstian Bach.14

What is perhaps even more surprising is that in the surviving compositional instructions we have of Mozart and Beethoven, we find the fundamental bass widely used-and this despite their well-known approbations of Bach's Versuch. Whether it is Mozart's instructions to Thomas Attwood, or Beethoven's lessons for Archduke Rudolf, we find Rameau's harmonic theories leaving their unmistakable mark.

But Rameau's theory is most insightful when applied to more normative progressions.

thorough bass does not deal with composition, but above all, simple accompaniment.

As with Mattheson, Telemann saw the realization of the figured bass to be a mechanical trade, one which had no more to do with the com position of music than did a brick-layer's job with the design of a building.

The thorough bass, we must keep in mind, is not a theory; it is a historically flexible and changing practice.

The basis of counterpoint (point against point) is melody. Harmony is evident in counterpoint which, I suppose, is what is causing the confusion. A theory professor once told me that Harmony is a byproduct of the rules of counterpoint being used properly. Counterpoint changed from renaissance to baroque in some significant ways. Renaissance counterpoint is often referred to as melodic counterpoint while Baroque is referred to as Harmonic counterpoint.

Composers who used counterpoint (renaissance period composers) did not think about the harmony in terms of chords, our modern sense of harmony. The melodic lines that were created using these counterpoint rules resulted in something that we can perceive as chords. However their focus was solely on melodies and the way they interacted. Baroque counterpoint is structurally based around chords but the focus is still on melodic interaction.

Bach's use of figured bass was exactly right for his purposes. It was neither archaic nor limited. Moreover, Bach's view that different vertical configurations of the same notes do not have the same harmonic and structural significance is borne out in modern theory books and theory pedagogy, not to mention the obvious fact that the figures he used, 6, 6/4, 4/2, 4/3, +6, and so on, are all still in use to indicate inversions and altered intervals.

I think figured bass vs. Rameau's number system is a red herring. I believe Mozart disparaged Rameau's system in a letter to his father, though I can't find the reference now (I think it might be in The Classical Style, actually.) I don't think Mozart "thought in" Roman numeral chords any more than Bach "thought in" figured bass - they thought in music.

Well, Bach did not recognize or acknowledge chord inversions. His figured bass method only recognizes specific forms of harmonic stacks. This is needlessly tedious, and a whole level of abstraction, which elegantly identifies a "C major" as a "C major," regardless of the inversion, is absent. By this, Bach was not interested in chord progressions or harmony, but only in identifying specific textures created as the result of voice movement. This is for counterpoint, and things have moved on.

Also, it seems to be an after-the-fact identifier of voicing, not an identifier of chords in a key which would be useful in creating progressions.

Bach recognized there were different ways one could vertically arrange the pitches of triads and he recognized that each arrangement had to be treated differently. So do modern theory books, in case you haven't noticed. Figured bass symbols more simply and elegantly indicate inversions than Roman numeral analysis; The term or concept of inversion would not have been useful or particularly meaningful in his style so why would he adopt it?

His figured bass method only recognizes specific forms of harmonic stacks.

In the key of C major this vertical arrangement of pitches is usually not a C major (tonic) chord, but rather a dominant chord with unresolved non-harmonic tones, or the result of neighbor or passing motions:

This arrangement, likewise, is often not a tonic chord:

Why would Bach use a term like inversion that tends to obscure distinctions, like the above, that were essential in his style?

By this, Bach was not interested in chord progressions or harmony, but only in identifying specific textures created as the result of voice movement.

In his use of figured bass Bach was interested in one thing: that the right pitches be played above the bass note. Using this shorthand indicates nothing about his interest in chord progressions or anything else. Obviously, Bach's music is governed by clear and rational harmonic progressions.

Okay then, figured bass only indicates placement of notes above a bass note, and does not identify it as a certain type of chord, such as C major. That's limited.

This is a procedural method, having more to do with the mechanics of voice leading than with harmonic identity or identification. This is a "craft technique," not an abstract theoretical idea like Rameau's elegant inversion theory.

Bach's methodology, and his way of thinking, is contrapuntal, and is NOT as clear and rational harmonically as you say it is.

Mozart even mocked Abbe George Joseph Vogler's treatise which was based on Rameau's method: "...his book is more useful for teaching arithmetic than teaching composition".

There is also no evidence that Haydn, Mozart, Hummel, Beethoven, or Cherubini were in the slightest bit influenced by Rameau's principles

Certainly, CPE Bach and his father were acquainted with Rameau's theory, but they completely disagreed with it. (This was made known in a letter to Kirnberger, cited in his Kunst des reinen Satzes: "You may proclaim that my and my deceased father's basic principles are contrary to Rameau's.")

" I AM A COMPOSER, AND I WAS BORN A KAPELLMEISTER. I MUST NOT AND CANNOT BURY MY GIFT FOR COMPOSING "

* Mozart's letter to his father Leopold - Feb. 1778

For example, all chords that contain sevenths are treated successively in Bach's approach. They are the chord of the seventh, the seven-six, the seven-four, and the seven-four-two chords. Although only the first of these is a chord in the Rameau sense, all are chords in Bach's sense.

Counterpoint as taught in the Baroque period (and even into the Classical period) was not so much a theory as it was a practice. Musicians were taught counterpoint through the method of thorough-bass (also known by other names: basso continuo, generalbass, figured bass, etc.). This was a practical skill which allowed a keyboardist (or lutenist) to improvise a number of voices over a given figured bass line while adhering to the rules of good voice leading and counterpoint. These figured bass lines often accompanied solo or orchestral parts so the keyboardist had to be quite skilled in this art as it required improvising during a performance of the piece. In this sense, the musician gained an intuitive grasp of harmony and voice leading after much practice in the method of thorough-bass.

The main difference between the theory of harmony as proposed by Rameau and that of thorough-bass is that the former thinks of harmony primarily as triads built in relation to the root note of a chord (e.g. a first inversion chord (consisting of a root, third and fifth, with the third in the bass)) while the latter thinks of harmony in terms of intervals over a given bass note (e.g. the intervals of a third and a sixth over an E). In short, Rameau's theory of harmony is theoretical (used mostly for analysis) while the method of thorough-bass is practical (used for improvising parts over a figured bass line).

he difference between figured bass principles and those of Rameau are really a difference between practice and theory. Figured bass (aka General Bass, Thoroughbass) was an actual practice that works (though basso continuo had died out by Beethoven's death it was still taught as a technique in Germany and Russia up to the C20th).

Rameau's principles were theoretical, not based on a living tradition but on a flawed analysis.

A theory being wrong isn't the problem, only when it's taught as technique.

It has always seemed intuitively wrong to think of block chords. Although no doubt you can write a chorale using the method, that is not without applying 'passing note' operations to make it flow.

Good question! Technique was originally passed directly from master-to-pupil (much like the Indian gurukal system still is). They were just concerned with what 'worked' musically... not theories so much. But you can also find this teaching contained in C.P.E Bach's 'Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments' which was the standard book studied and taught by Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. It deals with all these concerns (looking ahead, how to compensate for dense sections of an orchestral piece, etc). I'm reading it now. I doubt I'll ever play basso continuo, but it's definitely got some excellent general tips (though many are dated and strict) which can be adapted for modern music.

You are right, that Rameau. He's a disgrace, and his music was as bad as was his book. Pah. What a schmuck, Rameau.

Both J.S and C.P.E Bach were clearly superior to Rameau in knowledge, practical technique and imagination, so it seems strange to me that anyone would follow a theory rejected by them simply because it's seems more 'convenient' at first. Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven also did not follow Rameau's system, and there is no evidence that later composers did either, except I know Berlioz did, since Chopin (and Cherubini) criticised him for 'juxtaposing chords' instead of composing countrapuntally. Of course, 'chords' are necessary for playing harmony on instruments (keyboards and guitar) but it was not the primary way most composers crafted their music.

Schenker dismissed functional hamony theory outright to explain common practice works. Read his 'Rameau or Beethoven?' (as in, 'who are you going to believe?') you can see that Rameau’s theory of fundamental bass was simply a mistake:

"The histories of music all draw attention to Rameau’s Treatise on Harmony of 1722, extolling it as a major contribution to the field of music theory. They proclaim the new doctrine of fundamental bass and the inversions of a chord, of chordal construction in thirds and harmonic relations among those chords, as contained, virtually full-grown, in its pages.

What no music historian — or theorist, for that matter — has yet realized however is that even while J.S. Bach and Handel were still living, and before Mozart and Beethoven were even born, with this doctrine (i.e. "fundamental bass and the inversions of a chord, of chordal construction in thirds and harmonic relations among those chords"] the seeds of death had already been sown in [music] theory, and indirectly also in music composition!

In that he reduced all musical phenomena to fundamental basses and the progressions proper to them, Rameau detached what not even the layman can avoid seeing in front of his nose, namely the superimposition of notes, from the flux of horizontal voice-leading in which every superimposition has its origin.

What is more, even granting the significance of fundamental basses on his terms, Rameau really ought to have asked himself the question: Why is it that if generation of content (i.e. diminutions and their cohesion) is solely a matter of the vertical axis and its cadences — why, if this is so, do not these selfsame cadences left to their own devices give rise to a perpetuum mobile, so to speak, thereby turning the content into a perpetuum mobile too? What is it that offers resistance to such a perpetuum mobile? Where does the impetus come from ever to bring a composition to a close? If not from the vertical and its cadences, then does it not perhaps come from form? But where does the latter come from? The vertical and its cadences? Or is it not much more likely that it comes from the horizontal, and from the impetus at work there, the impetus of the law of the passing note? Instead of giving primacy to the horizontal, as the composing-out of the fundamental chord that yields content, and subordinating to it as a mere counterpoint the vertical, with its first arpeggiation of the fundamental chord and the derivatives of that, Rameau right at the outset shunned the horizontal in favor of the vertical, which offered his more lackluster French musical taste the enticing possibility of a cosier schematization. So it became Rameau’s sorry task in life to lure the musical ear away from voice-leading, instead of being the first to identify the latter and its laws."

These days Bach is revered above all others, yet his style was regarded as old fashioned before his death. One critic regarded his works as beautiful but often "obscured by an excess of art".

This seams heretical to us, and Handel is seen as a lesser master becasue he was less obsssed by the infinite combinatorics of counterpoint and harmony. All composers manifest a bias towards aspects of music that make themselves pre-dsiposed to whatever thoeries they regard as chiming with thier own beliefs as to what is the 'essence' of music.

As such all of them fall down at some point because they cant for example, explain why Beethoven likes to jump around for the hell of it.

As Debussey remarked, "you dont need to know the notation of a chord to appreciate its beauty".

Of course this is a romantic oversimplification, but its telling that for many centuries methods almost always concerned themselves with techniques that essentially specified what is accepted as tasteful, rathe than the "why" this being regarded as self evident. To explain the latter was perhaps an understandble folly of the elightenment.

Well, there is no real argument there, except that Rameau isn't regarded as being anything like of the same callibre as Bach and Handel, even by performers (like Gustav Leonhardt) who play and admire his music. Certainly Rameau's fugues have been widely criticised as being inferior to the German masters. Lully seems to be regarded as the greatest French master, yet I suspect he would still not make the top 10.

I think the difference is that the 'Bach school' was one of practice, the Rameau school was based on an acoustic theory, which incidentally has since been universally debunked!

Rousseau's Theory of Music and Language:

1. Music and Language are Linked in Their Origins:

Rousseau proposed that music and language share a common origin. In his view, both music and language originated from humans' natural emotions and were closely tied to human expression before becoming more formalized.

Primitive Language: Rousseau believed that early humans communicated through a form of "musical" language, where speech was more melodic and expressive. In this primal form, human communication was not just about conveying information but also about expressing emotions through sounds, tones, and rhythms.

Emotional Expression: He argued that music, like language, emerged as a way for humans to communicate emotion. In the earliest stages of humanity, people did not speak in the conventional sense but used a form of musical expression—intonations, inflections, and rhythms that expressed feelings of joy, sorrow, anger, or love.

2. Music Before Language:

In Rousseau's Essay on the Origin of Languages (1755), he suggested that language did not begin with abstract symbols or words but with emotional expression in the form of song. Before developing complex language, humans likely expressed their emotional states through music-like vocalizations, and from these early forms of communication, language gradually emerged.

Natural Melody: Rousseau imagined that early humans would have sung their thoughts or emotions rather than spoken them. Over time, these melodic expressions became more structured, and the abstract symbols of language (words) emerged from them.

3. The Role of Music in Society:

Rousseau saw music as a universal language that transcended barriers of spoken language and cultural differences. He felt that music could communicate emotional states in ways that words could not. Music, according to Rousseau, is an intuitive, non-rational form of expression that taps directly into human emotion, unlike language, which is a more rational and logical system.

Music as the Purest Form of Expression: He believed that music retained its connection to emotion more purely than language did. Music was the direct communication of feeling, whereas language became more detached from its emotional roots over time.

4. Music in the Development of Society:

Rousseau also discussed how music evolved in society, suggesting that it went through a process of refinement as societies became more complex. Early music was more primitive and tied to basic human emotions, but over time, as language and culture evolved, music became more structured and formalized, especially in the forms of written notation and classical compositions.

Music and the Corruption of Society: In his later works, particularly in his Discourse on the Arts and Sciences (1750), Rousseau was critical of how the arts, including music, became more artificial and less connected to natural human emotion as society progressed. He argued that the development of sophisticated forms of music, as in the classical tradition, reflected a society increasingly disconnected from its natural, emotional roots.

5. The Difference Between Music and Language in Civilization:

While Rousseau believed that music and language originated in similar ways, he also saw a clear distinction between the two as civilizations advanced. Language became a tool for communication and reasoning, while music remained a more emotional, spontaneous form of expression. He thought that the development of sophisticated language—logical, rational, and abstract—had led to a decline in the direct emotional power of communication, which music could still evoke.

🔹 1. Melody as Natural Expression of Emotion

Rousseau argued that melody comes from speech and is rooted in natural emotional expression. He believed that early human speech was musical, shaped by the rhythms and tones of emotional utterances. Melody, in this view, is closer to the origin of language and feeling.

In his Essay on the Origin of Languages, he writes:

“Melody imitates the inflections of the voice in passion.”

So for Rousseau, melody is direct, expressive, and emotional, making it a natural form of communication.

🔹 2. Harmony as Artificial and Intellectual

In contrast, Rousseau saw harmony—especially as developed in Baroque and Classical music—as an artificial invention of complex, intellectual society. Harmony, for him, was:

Technically impressive but emotionally colder

A product of academic and elitist music culture (especially in France)

Dependent on rules and systems, distancing it from natural expression

He believed harmony obscured the emotional clarity that melody could deliver on its own.

🔹 3. Critique of French Music and Preference for Italian Music

Rousseau’s views came out strongly in the “Querelle des Bouffons” (Quarrel of the Comic Actors), a famous 1750s debate in France about the value of French versus Italian opera.

French opera, like that of Lully and Rameau, emphasized complex harmonies, rigid structure, and ornamentation.

Italian opera, by contrast (especially opera buffa), focused on expressive melody, emotional immediacy, and vocal line.

👉 Rousseau sided with the Italians, arguing that melody touches the heart, while harmony only stimulates the intellect.

🔹 4. Key Quote from Rousseau (paraphrased translation)

“Melody is the soul of music. Without melody, music has no life.”

This line captures his core belief: that music's emotional power lies in melody, and that harmony—while not useless—is secondary, a decorative element that should support melody, not dominate it.

（华东师范大学）戴苗羽：卢梭的音乐美学思想与“喜歌剧之争”

Ⅰ.引言

让·雅克·卢梭是18世纪法国“喜歌剧之争”的代表人物，他既是启蒙运动的先导，又是浪漫主义文艺思潮在创作和理论方面的先驱。卢梭的音乐活动和音乐美学思想都具有鲜明的时代特征和个性特点，他的音乐观也是其社会政治思想的在艺术中的投射：偏爱意大利喜歌剧、提倡“音乐模仿自然”“音乐情感论”，体现出了与法国古典主义音乐美学观念的对立。在18世纪这一群英荟萃的时代，各个学者对于音乐美学思想展开了激烈的讨论，其中最为著名的便是以卢梭与拉莫思想争论所展开的“喜歌剧之争”。在这场争论中，卢梭呼吁对法国歌剧进行改革，特别强调了歌剧的表达形式，给曾经占据舞台日久的、夸张的法国大歌剧带来一股清新朴素之风，使其更加符合理性和人性的原则。卢梭的音乐美学思想在一定程度上塑造了当时音乐创作和理论的方向，也为后世音乐美学思想的发展奠定了基础。

Ⅱ.时代背景

自歌剧诞生以来，经历了百余年的演进，在欧洲逐渐确立为以意大利、法国为中心的两大派别。但歌剧，尤其是意大利正歌剧(Opera seria）逐渐衍变为贵族宫廷社交的装饰品，脚本、作曲、歌手和听众等都沉迷于浮夸的华丽风格中。各种铺张的娱乐，例如舞蹈、杂耍；豪华的舞台布景和服装；对阉人歌手华丽炫技的演唱技巧的推崇；大量填充剧情或者延迟的剧情的舞曲，占据了歌剧舞台。

受巴洛克时期的装饰艺术影响，18世纪初的音乐的美学被认为与形式美、结构美以及装饰性美密切相关，巴洛克音乐在装饰性、复杂性和奢华性方面展现出色彩斑斓的特点，也在此时的意大利正歌剧中表现得淋漓尽致。此时正歌剧的这些弊端受到人们普遍的反感，恰逢当时欧洲正在进行启蒙运动。因此，受启蒙思想的理性主义和情感主义的影响，一些学者针对这种情况进行了改革，同时也开始关注音乐在社会中的功能和作用，前古典主义时期的歌剧发展随之也出现了新的趋势。音乐美学思想逐渐发生了转变：音乐由“神”的赏赐，转变为“人”的意识；音乐逐渐向大众化、世俗化的方向发展；打破以往以英雄、史诗、古代神话为主题的创作理念，以描写市民生活为主的民间主题开始大量出现；音乐旋律占据主导地位，音乐风格由复杂、庄重转变为简洁、富有生活化气息（修海林，1993）。

Ⅲ.卢梭的音乐美学思想

17世纪是法国歌剧的辉煌时期，法国宫廷作曲家吕利开创了法国歌剧中的抒情悲剧形式；拉莫则继承了笛卡尔的理性主义，从物理学和数学研究音乐，诠释了古典主义“规律化”“秩序化”的原则。此二人的歌剧理念是法国绝对君主制下形成的古典歌剧传统，并将法国古典音乐的成就发展到了最顶点。然而到了18世纪，法国歌剧由于剧情单一、浮华奢靡、守旧无趣、结构松散而陷入了停滞不前的状态。恰逢此时，第一次工业革命取得胜利，资产阶级与小市民阶级登上了历史的舞台，音乐却仍然一味迎合法国的贵族审美，忽视了第一次工业革命取得了胜利的资产阶级和小市民对音乐的审美需求。（Enrico Fubini,2006）作为“百科全书派”的代表人物，卢梭的音乐观是其社会政治思想在艺术中的折射，他渴望平民歌剧、简朴生活化的歌剧，因此他对此吕利和拉莫的音乐形式极为反感。针对那一时期音乐发展的情况，卢梭提出了以下观点。

3.1音乐应表现平民精神世界之美

卢梭认为音乐应该表现平民精神世界之美的观点可以追溯到他对社会和个人自由的理解，以及他对自然状态下人类本性的看法。作为第三等级中平民阶层的代表，卢梭（2006，2007）在《新爱洛伊丝》和《忏悔录》中都表达了他对封建等级制度和贵族阶级的批判，以及对小人物纯真情感的热烈歌颂。卢梭认为，音乐不应该被社会地位或财富所左右，而应该是所有人都能够理解和欣赏的。人类在自然状态下是自由而平等的，但社会制度的出现导致了不平等和不自由，平民精神体现了人类在自然状态下的本真和纯粹，而社会制度则扭曲了这种本真。因此，他希望通过文化和艺术的表达来重塑这种平民精神，提倡作曲家创作描写平民淳朴生活的作品，使人们能够重新感受到自由和平等的理念，表现平民精神世界的自然真实之美。这也是卢梭追求平等、自由，反对封建强权专制的美学思想的体现。除了在音乐的题材方面着力体现平民的精神之美，卢梭还在音乐风格方面也追求真实、自然，他反对巴洛克以来在实践中被逐渐完善并在拉莫手中得到深入总结的和声学体系，取消了音乐中富于“激情”的重音，多彩冗杂的和声，着重发挥音乐旋律带来增色效果。让音乐以一种直接触及心灵的艺术形式，从而表达人类内心深处的情感和情绪，以便让所有人都能够从中获得心灵上的满足和启发。

3.2音乐应模仿自然

在卢梭的音乐美学中，自然不仅是外在的自然景观，更是人类内心的自然情感。他认为音乐应当模仿自然的情感流露，通过这种模仿自然的方式，可以唤起人们内心最深处的情感共鸣。在卢梭看来音乐的美在于其自然和简朴，这与他（2010）在《论人类不平等的起源和基础》中提出的自然状态和文明状态的对立相呼应。卢梭认为，自然是纯粹而美好的，是人类真正的本源，他相信自然界的秩序和和谐可以成为人类生活和社会组织的模板。在《音乐辞典》（Dictionnaire de musique）中，卢梭同样强调音乐的旋律应该像人类的自然语言一样，能够直接传达情感和思想（Rousseau，1826）。因此，他认为艺术应该从自然中汲取灵感，因为自然展现了最真实、最美好的状态。由此可见，卢梭的音乐美学思想正是试图将“模仿论”和“情感论”这两种理论结合起来，因此卢梭提出的“模仿”——音乐应该模仿自然。卢梭认为，音乐作为一种艺术形式，应当表达自然的和谐与美。他主张音乐应该从自然界中汲取灵感，通过模仿自然声音、情感和节奏来达到美的境界。这不仅是因为他认为自然是美好而纯粹的，也是因为他相信自然是最直接的情感和美感的来源，音乐作为艺术形式应该能够直接表达人类内心深处的情感和情绪，从而感动人们。

3.3旋律是音乐中最重要的元素

卢梭认为旋律最重要，这一观点可以追溯到他对音乐的审美观和人类感知方式的理解。卢梭强调音乐的情感表达功能，主张音乐应该通过旋律直接打动人心，而非依赖复杂的和声结构。他在《音乐辞典》中写道：“音乐的目的在于打动人心。”在他看来，旋律是音乐中最直接、最能够感染人心的部分，因为它通过音调的起伏、音高的变化以及节奏的编排来传达情感，触动人们的心灵，因此，他认为旋律比和声重要。

首先，卢梭认为旋律是音乐中最自然和直接的表达方式，他反对当时流行的复杂和过度装饰的音乐形式，尤其是巴洛克时期的对位法和装饰音。他认为这些复杂的音乐技术使音乐失去了其自然性和情感表达的直接性。他在《音乐辞典》中指出，旋律应该像人类的自然语言一样，具有自然的抑扬顿挫和情感表达。旋律的自然流畅和简洁能够最直接地传达情感，触动听众的心灵。然而，和声表现出的美却是一种构造美，是人类意识和审美的产物。作曲家在创作中过度使用和声，给歌曲添加复杂的伴奏、堆砌和声，这种刻意“设计”的音乐往往不能打动听众。而旋律作为生活的产物，与人们的日常语言紧密相连，更能直击人心。而旋律作为生活化的产物，与生活有着紧密的联系，是由人们日常生活化的语言而转变过来的，往往能够更加直击人的心灵。

其次，卢梭认为和声不能够体现出民族性的特征。卢梭相信音乐应该是一种直接反映人类情感和本性的艺术形式，而民族性则是文化的核心特征之一。在卢梭看来，音乐应该能够表达特定民族的情感、价值观和生活方式，从而体现出这个民族的独特性和文化认同，而和声这种音乐元素是一种抽象的、普遍的技术，它不受特定民族文化的影响。和声在欧洲古典音乐中被广泛应用，而且它的理论和实践都具有普遍性，不受特定民族文化的限制。因此，卢梭认为和声无法体现特定民族的文化特征，它是一种普遍的、超越民族界限的音乐元素。相反，卢梭认为旋律和节奏等元素更能够体现民族性，因为它们更直接地反映了特定民族的音乐传统、生活方式和情感体验。旋律和节奏可以通过特定的音乐风格和传统来表达，能够体现出某一民族的语言习惯和心灵活动，从而反映出特定民族的文化认同和价值观，体现了民族特性。

最后，卢梭认为和声很难被普通听众接受。在卢梭看来音乐应该是一种直接触及心灵的艺术形式，能够表达人类内心深处的情感和情绪。对普通听众来说，更容易被直接的旋律所触动，因为旋律更直接地传达了情感和情绪；而和声可能相对抽象和间接，未经过专业音乐训练的人很难从一些和声进行中找到美感，因为它没有模仿任何事物。因而和声在人的情感没有建立直接紧密的联系，不具备共同性，在音乐中只是辅助手段，为曲调增添色彩的作用。首先，和声是音乐中一个复杂而技术性强的方面。它涉及到不同音乐声部之间的和谐关系、音程的选择、和声进行的运用等，这些都需要较高的音乐理论知识和训练。对于普通听众来说，难以理解和欣赏和声的复杂结构和技术性。其次，卢梭认为音乐应该是能够被广大群众所理解和接受的艺术形式。然而，和声往往更受到受过专业训练或音乐教育的人的欣赏，对于普通听众来说，更容易被简单明了的旋律所打动，而不是抽象的和声结构。

在卢梭所处的时代，音乐教育和音乐欣赏往往局限于上层社会或受过专业训练的人群中。因此，普通人对于复杂的和声结构可能缺乏理解和欣赏，因为他们没有接受过相应的教育和训练。所以，卢梭更加主张音乐应该是能够触及广大群众的艺术形式，更倾向于简单明了、直接感人的旋律。

3.4语言特点会制约音乐旋律的表达

十八世纪以卢梭为代表的“百科全书派”学者认为旋律能够通过声音的起伏、音调的变化和节奏的组织来传达情感和意义，语言在人类生活中占据了如此重要的地位，旋律在一定程度上受到了语言特点的制约。因此，他们非常注重音乐和语言的关系。

卢梭（2003）认为不同的语言具有不同的语音结构、音韵规律和语调模式，这些特点会影响到人们对于音乐旋律的感知和接受，旋律变化是在模仿其民族的语言习惯，旋律特点就受民族语言特点所影响。因此，卢梭强调语言的音乐性，认为音乐应该与歌词紧密结合，以增强其表达效果。卢梭将法国歌剧与意大利歌剧、法语和意大利语进行了比较，从语法、发音等方面入手，认为歌剧应该用意大利语演唱，而非法语，他通过考察一段源自吕利《阿尔米德》中著名的宣叙调来印证这一点。卢梭认为，法国音乐中既不存在节奏又缺乏旋律，没有明显重音，多鼻音，导致法国歌剧结构冗长、节奏拖沓，无法演唱出令人满意的咏叹调和宣叙调。而意大利语节奏清晰、自由灵活，并且旋律摆脱了和声的束缚，更加适合歌唱，更易于人们理解和接受。法语的抑扬顿挫不如意大利语适合歌唱，其语言特点使得它不适合创作出旋律优美的歌曲，这也是他支持意大利喜歌剧的重要原因之一。

Ⅳ.卢梭与“喜歌剧之争”

4.1喜歌剧之争的背景及起因

在以吕利为代表的法国古典歌剧创作经历了十七世纪的辉煌璀璨后，十八世纪却陷入了停滞不前的局面，法国歌剧虽有宏大壮丽的场面，却呆板守旧，毫无创新。然而这一时期意大利喜歌剧以一种新鲜的艺术形式，迅速席卷了欧洲歌剧舞台，因其轻松愉快的情感氛围、简洁的音乐旋律、紧凑的剧情结构、角色的喜剧化处理，广受群众欢迎（李晓冬，2019）。

1752年8月1日，意大利作曲家佩尔戈莱西的歌剧《管家女仆》在法国歌剧院上演，获得巨大成功并引发热烈反响。由此引发了十八世纪自旋律派与和声派之争以来的第二次艺术争论（何乾三，1984），即关于法国大歌剧和意大利喜歌剧的激烈争论，争论的双方是以卢梭为首支持意大利喜歌剧的百科全书学派和以宫廷贵族为主的支持法国大歌剧的权力派。一方面，以卢梭为代表的“洋务派”支持意大利喜歌剧的新鲜活力，认为它能够为法国歌剧带来新的生机和活力。他们主张借鉴意大利歌剧来改造法国本土歌剧，推动法国歌剧的发展。另一方面，以拉莫为代表的“本土派”则坚持法国“歌唱悲剧”的传统，认为法国歌剧应该保持其独特的民族风格和艺术特色，他们批评意大利喜歌剧的轻浮和粗俗，认为它不如法国歌剧高雅和庄重。卢梭在《论法国音乐的一封信》中斥责法国歌剧音乐的晦涩、贫乏，赞美意大利歌剧音乐自然优美而富有激情，并随之创作了两部喜歌剧式样的作品《乡村卜师》和《皮革马利翁》，这就是“喜歌剧之争”。

4.2卢梭在喜歌剧之争中的立场与观点

在这场著名的“喜歌剧之争”（La Querelle des Bouffons）中，卢梭展现了他独特的歌剧美学观，这种美学观不仅反映了他的艺术偏好，更体现了他对艺术本质和社会功能的深刻思考。作为喜歌剧（Opera comique）的坚定支持者，卢梭认为喜歌剧相比于传统的严肃歌剧（Opera seria）更贴近自然，更能真实地表达普通人的情感和生活。这一立场反映了他对自然主义和情感表达的重视，同时也是对法国传统歌剧形式的批判。卢梭对喜歌剧的支持不仅是因为它符合他的艺术审美，更是因为它体现了他对自然、真实、道德教化、社会批判和艺术普及的深刻理论追求。这些独特的价值使喜歌剧在卢梭看来，不仅仅是一种娱乐形式，更是一种具有深远社会意义和道德意义的艺术表现。

4.2.1 自然性与真实感

卢梭提倡回归自然，强调自然性和真实感在艺术中的重要性。他认为喜歌剧比抒情歌剧更自然、更贴近生活，更能真实地表现人性和社会现实，而不是贵族阶层的虚伪和做作。喜歌剧展示的是社会现实状态以及普通人的日常生活和情感的真实写照，表现平民的市井生活，体现了平民真实朴素的情感以及平民精神世界的美，没有宏大的戏剧性修饰，从而更容易让观众感受到情感的真实流露。传统的法国宫廷歌剧风格和内容往往过于僵化和形式化，缺乏真实情感的表达，这类歌剧通常有着宏大的舞台设计、复杂的和声和高度程式化的表演，这些在卢梭看来却是对自然和人类本性的背离，而喜歌剧通过贴近生活的情感表达，使观众更容易产生共鸣和感动。

4.2.2 道德教化功能

喜歌剧常常通过幽默和讽刺的方式对社会现象进行批判，这与卢梭的启蒙思想是一致的，这种批判性和启蒙作用也是卢梭支持喜歌剧的重要原因。他认为喜歌剧通过揭露和嘲讽社会的不公和腐败，能够激发观众的思考，进而反思自身行为。卢梭的喜歌剧常常通过幽默和讽刺的方式对社会现象进行批判，通过展现普通人的生活和道德困境，传达道德教训，引导观众反思自己的行为和社会道德。这种教化功能使喜歌剧不仅仅是一种娱乐形式，更是一种具有教育意义的艺术形式。喜歌剧通过对日常生活的描绘和对人性弱点的讽刺，能够起到道德教化的作用，使观众在娱乐的同时受到教育，反思自己的行为和社会道德，促进社会的改良和进步。

并且卢梭支持艺术的普及，主张艺术应当为大众服务，而不仅仅是上层社会的特权。喜歌剧以其通俗易懂的语言和贴近生活的主题，能够被普通人所接受和喜爱，符合他对艺术大众化的追求，从一定程度上消除社会阶层之间的隔阂，打破了歌剧艺术是贵族特权的传统，让每个人都能享受到艺术的美和乐趣。

4.2.3 简洁明了的旋律结构

旋律方面，意大利喜歌剧更重视旋律在音乐中的作用，简洁明快，优美流畅，情感真挚，而法国大歌剧却时常要求和声的织体，旋律声部总摆脱不了在持续的低音和弦上进行，复杂繁琐，守旧无味。这种易于理解的音乐结构使得喜歌剧的音乐更易于被观众接受和记忆，听众能够更快速地理解和感受音乐的情感，有助于拉近观众与喜歌剧之间的距离，让他们更容易融入剧情和角色的情感中。除此之外，这种旋律结构也有助于增强喜歌剧的音乐记忆性。由于旋律的重复和明快，听众更容易记住整首音乐作品的主要主题和发展变化，这种易于记忆的特点不仅让听众在欣赏过程中体验到更多的满足感，同时也为喜歌剧的传播和推广提供了更为便利的条件。

4.2.4 音乐与歌词的融合

卢梭强调音乐应当与歌词紧密结合，以增强情感的表达和叙事的效果。旋律方面，他认为在喜歌剧中，音乐和歌词的融合更加自然和谐，能够更好地传达故事和情感，意大利喜歌剧更重视旋律在音乐中的作用，而法国大歌剧却时常要求和声的织体，常出现音乐压倒歌词的现象，导致情感表达的割裂。在对于歌词语言方面，卢梭坚持认为法语根本不适合谱曲，而重音清晰、富有节奏感的意大利语却是天生的歌剧语言，可以更加直观的表达各种情绪，因此反对使用除意大利语之外的歌唱语言进行歌剧创作。

“喜歌剧之争”反映了不同国家和地区对于音乐艺术风格的认同与争论，以及在不同国家和地区之间存在的文化认同和价值观的差异。平民阶层和贵族阶层在审美趣味和喜好上的冲突与碰撞，为人们的审美提供了更多的选择，使得法国的歌剧向一个新的音乐风格转变，从浮夸的宫廷风转变到平民化，从一定意义上动摇了顽固守旧的封建思想的统治地位。通过这些观点，卢梭在喜歌剧之争中不仅提出了对歌剧形式和内容的具体要求，更展现了他对艺术本质和功能的深刻理解。这些音乐理念的碰撞也反映出了18世纪末至19世纪初欧洲社会和思想的多元化与复杂性，从而体现出对人性、社会现实的深刻探讨和思想内涵，这场争论也为后来音乐剧和歌剧的多元发展奠定了基础。

Ⅴ.卢梭音乐美学思想的影响与意义

卢梭为代表的百科全书学派在“喜歌剧之争”中对于意大利歌剧的高度认可与支持，使得喜歌剧这一体裁得到了迅速的推广。卢梭的音乐美学思想既是情感论美学的先导，也是19世纪浪漫主义音乐的基础理论，他的音乐美学思想对后来的歌剧改革产生了深远的影响，在许多经典流传的歌剧作品中，如《费加罗的婚礼》《塞维利亚的理发师》等，都能看到喜歌剧对其的影响。

5.1对音乐美学发展的影响

卢梭的音乐美学核心是自然主义，他主张音乐应回归自然，强调旋律的纯净和情感的真实表达。这种思想对18世纪及以后的音乐美学产生了重要影响。卢梭认为，音乐不应被复杂的和声和形式束缚，而应直接表达自然的情感和人类的本质。这一观点在当时引起了广泛共鸣，并推动了音乐创作中对自然和情感的追求。其强调音乐作为情感表达的重要媒介，主张音乐应真实地反映人类的内心世界的理念对后世的浪漫主义音乐产生了重要影响。浪漫主义音乐家如贝多芬、舒伯特和肖邦等人，都在他们的作品中强调个人情感的表达和音乐的抒情性，正是受到了卢梭思想的启发和传承。

5.2对歌剧发展的影响

以卢梭音乐美学思想引导下的喜歌剧之争直接推动了喜歌剧在法国乃至欧洲的广泛流行。卢梭的《乡村卜者》作为喜歌剧的代表作，展示了这种音乐形式的巨大潜力。喜歌剧以其通俗易懂的剧情、贴近生活的内容和明快的音乐风格，迅速赢得了观众的喜爱，成为当时一种主要的歌剧形式，其发展不仅丰富了歌剧艺术的表现形式，也使歌剧更加大众化，扩大了其影响力。

同时，喜歌剧之争促进了歌剧形式的多样化发展，这些作品在戏剧性和音乐性上都取得了高度成就，体现了歌剧艺术的多元魅力。传统的严肃歌剧和新兴的喜歌剧各自发展，形成了丰富多彩的歌剧景观。作曲家们在创作中更加注重形式和内容的创新，探索多种表现手法和艺术风格。例如，卢梭返璞归真、回归自然的观点在格鲁克这里得到了继承与发展，对其创作产生了巨大的影响。在歌剧创作方面，格鲁克进一步强调了宣叙调在歌剧的功能，从而使宣叙调与咏叹调之间更具连接性；1762年首演于维也纳的《奥菲欧与尤莉迪茜》是对卢梭“旋律具有描绘性”思想的延续，他一改之前作曲家喜爱加入大量的连续花腔的作曲风格，更加注重歌词的运用和思想内涵体现。但卢梭“法语”不适合作为歌剧语言的观点却过于激进，后世作曲家在创作中也证实了其他语言也可以良好的诠释音乐。如莫扎特的《魔笛》就很好地证明了德语也可以作为歌唱语言，成为语言多样化发展的典范。

5.3对文化与社会的影响

卢梭的音乐美学思想和喜歌剧之争对当时的社会文化也产生了深远的影响，激发了人们对音乐和艺术的热情，促进了思想的交流和文化的繁荣。卢梭提倡的自然主义和情感真实，呼应了启蒙思想的核心理念，即追求真理、自然和人性的解放，将音乐作为一种文化载体，在启蒙思想的传播和社会变革中发挥了重要作用。卢梭的美学思想强调音乐作为情感表达的重要媒介，主张音乐应真实地反映人类的内心世界，这一理念重要对后世的浪漫主义音乐产生了重要影响。浪漫主义音乐家如贝多芬、舒伯特和肖邦等人，都在他们的作品中强调个人情感的表达和音乐的抒情性，这正是受到了卢梭思想的启发和对其的传承。

卢梭对音乐教育的重视和他的教育理念也对后世产生了深远影响：他主张音乐教育应注重培养儿童的自然感受和音乐兴趣，而不是机械地教授技术。这一理念对现代音乐教育具有重要启示。许多教育家在实践中借鉴卢梭的思想，强调音乐教育中的情感体验和个性发展，推动了音乐教育的改革和创新。

Ⅵ.结语

卢梭的音乐美学思想在世界音乐史上具有重大的进步意义，他将其政治上所提倡的自由、平等、解放的观点，完美地运用到了他的音乐美学思想中。他的音乐美学思想，尤其是“音乐模仿自然”和“音乐情感论”，不仅挑战了当时的音乐传统，也为音乐创作和欣赏提供了新的视角。

卢梭“音乐平民化”的美学思想在喜歌剧中得到了彰显与推广，一改往日单纯服务于宫廷王族的浮夸风音乐风格，使音乐开始服务于广大群众并逐步走向平民化，颠覆了统治阶级的专制强权对人们思想的约束，一定程度上解放了人们的思想意识，为音乐的发展提供了新的方向。所倡导的歌剧美学更是推动了歌剧艺术的革新与发展，歌剧这一艺术形式更加贴近民众生活，为浪漫主义时期音乐美学繁荣发展做了铺垫。

参考文献

[1](法)让·雅克·卢梭. (2016). 新爱洛伊丝. 江西教育出版社.

[2]恩里科·福比尼(Enrico Fubini). 修子建译. (2006). 西方音乐美学史. 湖南文艺出版社.

[3]何乾三.(1984). 卢梭的音乐美学思想. 乐府新声(沈阳音乐学院学报)(04), 39-44.

[4]李晓冬.(2019). 什么是音乐美学. 中央音乐学院出版社.

[5]卢梭. (2017). 忏悔录. 商务印书馆.

[6]让·雅克·卢梭. (2003). 论语言的起源兼论旋律与音乐的摹仿. 上海人民出版社.

[7]修海林. (1993). 欧洲十八世纪启蒙时代的音乐美学思想.音乐艺术(02), 19-25+46.

[8]Rousseau.J.J. (1826). Dictionnaire de musique. Paris: Emler Frères.

Rousseau’s Musical Aesthetics and the “Querelle des Bouffons”

Dai Miaoyu (East China Normal University, China)

Abstract: Rousseau, as a thinker of the Enlightenment and a representative of the 18th-century French “Comedy and Opera Controversy”, made great contributions in the field of music aesthetics. His exploration and promotion of music aesthetics, as well as “music imitates nature”, “music emotion theory” and other points of view, is not only an extension of his philosophical and literary achievements, but also played an important role in the development of music and art at that time, and laid a solid foundation for the formation of Romantic aesthetics. It also laid a solid foundation for the formation of Romantic aesthetics. In this paper, we will explain Rousseau’s music aesthetics from four aspects, namely, the background of the era, the ideological viewpoints, the comedy theatre controversy, and the significance of the impact of Rousseau’s music aesthetics.

Keywords: Rousseau; Musical Aesthetics; Comic Opera Controversy

Famous Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote:

"The study of composition, which used to require about twenty years, now can be completed in a couple of months; musicians are devouring the theories of Rameau, and the number of students has multiplied. ... France has been inundated by bad music and bad musicians; everybody thinks he has understood the finesses of art before having learned as much as the rudiments; and everybody tries to invent new harmonies before having trained his ear to distinguish between right and wrong ones."

nd some more, Rameau discovered method of chord progressions not because that he was cleverer as a.g. Aristoxenus but thank to new technology of music production. Now computer technology can bring a crucial change in this realm and method of chord progressions might become irrelevant.“

Chopin’s thoughts on Rameau were not entirely reverent, despite the respect he had for his harmonic theory. In fact, Chopin did criticize Rameau's fugues. According to some of his students, Chopin considered Rameau’s fugues to be poorly written and lacking in counterpoint. This criticism is rooted in Chopin’s strong belief in the purity of counterpoint, which he admired in the works of Bach, Mozart, and others who were masters of counterpoint.

While Mozart definitely studied theory and took lessons, he was also known for his remarkable ability to compose by ear and his innate musicality. Unlike some of his contemporaries, who studied music more strictly from textbooks and examples, Mozart often used his own improvisations and in-depth analysis of works by others to refine his craft.

Bach vs. Rameau

In 1722, Johann Sebastian Bach launched a musical revolution, with his publication of the first book of The Well-Tempered Clavier, containing 24 Preludes and Fugues in all keys, and demonstrating for the first time the full potentialities of well-tempered, vocal-based counterpoint. Bach did not add any commentary or theoretical analysis; for him, music was a fully developed language, and Bach said everything he wanted to say, without any ambiguity, in the music itself.

But in that same year, the French organist Jean-Philip Rameau published his Treatise on Harmony, claiming to have discovered the fundamental law of all musical harmony and composition, a law based on mathematics. According to Rameau, the principle and basis of all music is located in what he called "la basse fondamentale." Rameau promises, by reducing the successions of notes in a piece of music to the single line formed by the "fundamental bass," to make the study of music much easier:

[My] book contains a special method for learning how to compose music in a very short time. This has already been tested.

Rameau's work was spread into Germany by Marpurg and others, against the violent resistance of the Bach school, who immediately recognized that Rameau's ideas constituted a deadly assault on the whole Renaissance principle of composition, which had been based on vocal polyphony. The ensuing history of music has been a war between the continuators of the Bach tradition, and the followers of Rameau—which is essentially the same thing as the Romantic school. Mozart and Beethoven, for example, were still rigorously trained in Bach. But by the time of Brahms, the Bach tradition had been uprooted from most musical education, to the point that Brahms himself complained bitterly to his student Jenner, that he, Brahms, had suffered enormously from "bad textbooks" and had to learn everything over again.

Later, in his last musical treatise, Rameau is even more explicit:

We finally possess the principle of this profound knowledge which will render immortal the glory of mathematics and mathematicians. This principle is in the vibrating body.

So, for Rameau, it is sense perception and the vibrating body which determine what music is. The human mind plays no role! This is exactly what you find today in a discotheque: vibrating bodies, but no thinking human beings! The only additional factor is what Rameau calls "taste" (gout) and "license," which are unexplainable and arbitrary.

Rameau's theory pays no attention to the principles of vocal counterpoint, which had been at the center of the development of music since the Renaissance. Instead, he presents a static notion of vertical harmony on the basis of chords, or momentary constellations of notes that happen to be sounded at the same time.

Johann Sebastian Bach

Johannes Kepler

In my remarks I will address the fundamental point that Dino de Paoli has taken up, but from a completely different angle.

Twenty-five hundred years ago, the Chinese philosopher Confucius said he could determine the political and moral character of a nation, just from its music. Imagine if Confucius were here today, and he would hear the typical kind of music which 95 percent of young people today are listening to, often all day long.

What would Confucius say about this? Surely he would say: "Uh, oh! Here is a doomed dynasty, a dynasty which is in a late stage of inner collapse." And he would be right. Although we do not exactly have a dynasty in the traditional Chinese sense, we do have a dynasty of ideas, of commonly accepted opinions and attitudes, which is collapsing before our eyes. None of the opinions and beliefs, which typify public and private life today, are going to last very long. They will soon be swept away by the on-rush of perhaps the greatest crisis in human history.

But what if we were to ask Confucius, how do you know, Mr. Confucius, from listening to the music, that the present dynasty is doomed? How can you make such a forecast? He would certainly answer: "Because, from the music I can determine the character of the mental processes prevalent in a society, and above all the prevailing conception of Man. Those tell me whether a civilization will develop, or collapse."

Confucius already knew the bare kernel of the method, which was later practiced, with great success, by Johannes Kepler and Carl Friedrich Gauss, in their discovery of a missing planet in the solar system. It is the method of characteristics, as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz understood the term, which is also equivalent to the conception of a general, anti-Euclidean physical geometry, developed by Bernhard Riemann as a continuation of the work of Kepler, Leibniz, and Gauss. It is also the method of well-tempered counterpoint, as developed by Johann Sebastian Bach. It is the opposite of information theory and cybernetics.

To bring this out most forcefully, I want to focus on a crucial historical branching point, when the issue of method in musical composition—and implicitly in all of human knowledge—took a particularly drastic and pedagogically useful form.

Bach vs. Rameau

[My] book contains a special method for learning how to compose music in a very short time. This has already been tested.

Rameau was soon hailed in France as the "Isaac Newton of Music." His fame spread rapidly throughout Europe, and his book became the single most influential writing on the theory of music up to this day. Rameau was the basis of Helmholtz's later work, which in turn was taken as authoritative for all the Twentieth-century teaching of music theory. If you study musical harmony at virtually any music conservatory or school today, what you will get, essentially, is Rameau.

From the very beginning, Rameau's theory was strongly promoted by the encyclopedist d'Alembert, Voltaire, and the same British-Venetian salons that sponsored the so-called Enlightenment, and promoted the cult of Isaac Newton in France and on the continent generally. The effect in France was so enormous that, thirty years after the publication of Rameau's Treatise, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, famous as a music critic, described the situation with the following words:

The study of composition, which used to require about twenty years, now can be completed in a couple of months; musicians are devouring the theories of Rameau, and the number of students has multiplied. ... France has been inundated by bad music and bad musicians; everybody thinks he has understood the finesses of art before having learned as much as the rudiments; and everybody tries to invent new harmonies before having trained his ear to distinguish between right and wrong ones.

Rameau's popularity practically meant the end of rigorous musical composition in France and a great part of Europe. Bad music, particularly opera, became a kind of plague, similar to the rock and pop music of our days. Rameau's work was spread into Germany by Marpurg and others, against the violent resistance of the Bach school, who immediately recognized that Rameau's ideas constituted a deadly assault on the whole Renaissance principle of composition, which had been based on vocal polyphony. The ensuing history of music has been a war between the continuators of the Bach tradition, and the followers of Rameau—which is essentially the same thing as the Romantic school. Mozart and Beethoven, for example, were still rigorously trained in Bach. But by the time of Brahms, the Bach tradition had been uprooted from most musical education, to the point that Brahms himself complained bitterly to his student Jenner, that he, Brahms, had suffered enormously from "bad textbooks" and had to learn everything over again.

Rameau's Theory Per Se

Now, let us briefly look at Rameau's theory and what was wrong with it.

Rameau starts out, very characteristically, by declaring: "Music is the science of sounds; therefore, sound is the main object of music."

Wait a minute! What about the human mind, what about the ideas which music is supposed to express? What Rameau says would be like saying, that the principles of poetry can be deduced from the properties of words. The notion, that a musical composition has a meaning, plays no role in Rameau's work. Later, in his last musical treatise, Rameau is even more explicit:

We finally possess the principle of this profound knowledge which will render immortal the glory of mathematics and mathematicians. This principle is in the vibrating body.

Start with a vibrating string of some length, which produces some tone. Divide it into 2, 3, 4, and 5 parts, which are the simplest arithmetical divisions. The chords of lengths 1/2, 1/3, 1,4, and 1/5 produce tones, which together with the original tone form a chord. Rameau considers this chord the foundation of music. I will play it on the piano: [demonstration]. The upper tones coincide with the so-called "overtone series," experimentally established by Sauveur and others around the same time.

Now Rameau argues that the relationship of an octave—corresponding to division of a string by two, is a kind of identity. We hear any tone, and its upper or lower octave, as being essentially the same note. As a result, according to Rameau, we can replace any note in the fundamental chord by its octave, and we will get a chord which is harmonically equivalent. By such rearrangements, we get a whole series of chords, known as inversions, which are all derived from the same bass tone, or "basse fondamentale," and which Rameau regards as essentially equivalent.

But if you take the standpoint of vocal polyphony, octaves are not at all equivalent: Replacing a note by its octave transforms all the relationships among the different voices!

This sort of transformation of intervals, known as inversion, was of course known long before Rameau, as a principle of development in vocal-based counterpoint. But for Rameau, there is no real change, because the fundamental bass remains the same.

In fact, Rameau thinks of music as a sequence of individual sound effects. He has no conception of a process of transformation, like someone who speaks only in nouns, without verbs.

Examples like this demonstrate some obvious points, refuting Rameau's whole approach:

First, human beings don't hear music as a succession of chords or sound effects, but rather as a process of transformations. It is not the sound of a momentary constellation of notes that determines, for example, whether we hear a given moment as consonant or dissonant, but rather the context, the process subsuming those notes. Second, each of the voices in Bach's chorale has its own characteristics, its own willful motion; so that each moment of such a polyphonic composition is like an historical event, in which various different processes intersect and interact with each other. The dramatic moment at the word "Jesu" is especially connected with the upward motion of the bass, which begins in the preceding measure, and is continued by the soprano and alto voices; and with Bach's special use of the half-tone intervals B-NATURAL-C--B-NATURAL and F-SHARP-G-F-SHARP in the various registers, which lends this chorale (and the whole motet), a specific character

Johann Sebastian Bach

Johannes Kepler

In my remarks I will address the fundamental point that Dino de Paoli has taken up, but from a completely different angle.

Bach vs. Rameau

[My] book contains a special method for learning how to compose music in a very short time. This has already been tested.

Rameau's Theory Per Se

Now, let us briefly look at Rameau's theory and what was wrong with it.

Rameau starts out, very characteristically, by declaring: "Music is the science of sounds; therefore, sound is the main object of music."

We finally possess the principle of this profound knowledge which will render immortal the glory of mathematics and mathematicians. This principle is in the vibrating body.

But if you take the standpoint of vocal polyphony, octaves are not at all equivalent: Replacing a note by its octave transforms all the relationships among the different voices! Firstly, I end up in a different register of the voice, or even in a different voice. Secondly, I transform the intervals between the voices. For example: a third becomes a sixth, and a fifth becomes a fourth, and vice-versa [ Figure 1].

In fact, Rameau thinks of music as a sequence of individual sound effects. He has no conception of a process of transformation, like someone who speaks only in nouns, without verbs.

Let me show you a simple example to see how completely incompetent this so-called theory is: a very simple chorale which Bach uses at the opening and closing of his motet, Jesu meine Freude. In Figure 2, in the measure marked with an arrow, we see, on the first syllable of the word "Jesu," what Rameau would identify as a perfectly simple consonant chord on C. Perfectly consonant, that is, when we play it or sing it in isolation. Similarly, Rameau would identify the notes just before it, at the end of the preceeding measure, as a perfect consonant chord on B-natural.

But, if I play the two in succession, as fundamental chords in Rameau's sense, I get just nonsense. Whereas, in the context of the actual chorale, the moment where the supposed "chord" of C sounds, is a moment of great tension, a kind of dissonance, which is resolved by the development on the following words, "meine Zier!"

Examples like this demonstrate some obvious points, refuting Rameau's whole approach:

How To Write Bad Music

These sorts of things were well known to any competent composer in Rameau's time, but he just ignores them and goes on to formulate his instructions on how to write music. First, you invent a fundamental bass, according to your own good or bad taste. Rameau advises composers who have no taste, to just choose the fundamental bass at random! Next, you just write down the corresponding chords, choosing whatever distribution of intervals suits your mood. In some places you can omit the fundamental note, and use one of the other notes of the chord as the bass note (so-called chordal inversion). Finally, you can add some dissonances according to your arbitrary "taste." Congratulations! You are now a bad composer!

In fact, Robert Schumann criticized a typical product of the Rameau school, the Waverly overture by Hector Berlioz, in the following words:

Often it is only a series of empty sound-effects, of lumps of chords thrown together, which seems to determine the character of the piece. ... He shines like a jet of water, but he also leaves a stinky smell of sulfur behind him; he puts forward great propositions and truths, only to fall thereafter into schoolboy-like babbling.

Friedrich Chopin made a very similar criticism of Berlioz, in a discussion reported by Eugène Delacroix:

It has become customary now to learn chords ahead of counterpoint, which means, ahead of the sequences of notes by which the chords are formed. Berlioz simply sets down the chords and fills the interstices as best he can.

At first hearing, it sounds nice, and you can be fooled by Rameau, who is skillful at creating harmonic sound-effects and putting short counterpoint imitations in. But it is not a fugue, because there is no dialogue, no tension between the voices. Not surprising, because in Rameau's theory the voices have no real existence; they are essentially devised after the basic outline of the composition has been finished, to fill in the spaces between the chords, as Chopin pointed out.

Indeed, Bach's polyphony involves a special sort of harmony, not explicable by Rameau's sort of theory. To emphasize this, I want to play a short passage from later on in the same B-minor fugue [Figure 5].

This passage is completely anomalous to either Rameau's theory, or the rules of textbook counterpoint. Looked at abstractly or statically, the voices make a jarring series of dissonances, without formal resolution. But we do not hear their motion as dissonant! The reason it works, cannot be deduced from the notes per se, but lies in the intelligible idea which is guiding the voices. That is why they seem to progress without difficulty toward their respective destinations, like planets travelling along a set of least-action harmonic "orbits," moving in a special curved space-time, which has been created by the composer in the mind of the listener, not by some fixed a priori rules. As a result, Bach is constantly able to do "impossible" things, breaking the rules in a truthful way. In fact, Bach's student Kirnberger reported:

The great, late J. Seb. Bach used to say: It must be possible to do everything; he never wanted to hear that something was impossible.

The music is not in the notes but in the silence between them." ~ Mozart ·

Now, the key to Bach's special use of harmony, is the way each voice changes the way each other voice is heard. Let me do a very simple pedagogical demonstration of this, which was made by Bach's student Kirnberger [Figure 6]. He took the opening phrases of a very simple chorale melody: "Ach Gott und Herr, wie gross und schwer sind mein' begangne Sünden," and wrote 26 different bass lines to it, each bringing out a different sense and coloring in the original melody. In doing so, Kirnberger emphasized the conception of harmony, not as a matter of chords, but as a means of contrapuntal development. We will just do five of them to give you an idea of this. (Note that this is not intended to be a real piece of music, but only a laboratory demonstration.)

A useful reflection of Bach's conception is contained in the first (and I think, best) biography of Bach, written by the music director of Göttingen University, Nikolaus Forkel, based on discussions and correspondence with Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Kirnberger, and others of J.S. Bach's students. Forkel characterized Bach's use of harmony in the following way:

He considered music entirely as a language, and a composer as a poet. ... [But] so long as the language of music has only simple melodies, or only successive connection of musical tones, it must still be considered poor. ... Very different is the case, when two melodies are so interwoven with each other that they, as it were, converse together, like two persons of the same rank and equally well informed. ... This sort of union of two melodies gives rise to new combinations of tones and consequently to an increase in the variety of musical expressions. When more voices are added, and interwoven with each in the same free and independent manner, the wealth of musical expression increases still further. ... Harmony must thus be understood not simply as the accompaniment of a simple melody, but as a real means to increase ... the wealth of our musical language.

Here Forkel is explaining what has since become known as the "cross-voice" principle: New musical ideas are generated, so-to-speak, between the voices. So it is, also, in a dialogue of Plato, or a drama of Aeschylus, Shakespeare, or Schiller.

As a bonus note: partimento gives you much better grounding in music than standard functional harmony / voiceleading theory does to learn counterpoint. However, that standard theory will also be useful - it gives you an alternative frame of thought and I argue that looking at things through multiple perspectives is overall the best. Lot of the deserved critique at RNA/functional harmony stuff really would be much less of a problem if people just learned partimento perhaps alongside or before/afterwards (not a teacher / expert, so I can't say what is most ideal).

Perfect 🌙 Let’s look directly at Rameau’s own words — his self-reversals on functional harmony — with French originals + English translations + context for each.

🎵 1. “Le chant conduit l’harmonie.”

“It is the melody that leads the harmony.”

📖 Source: Code de musique pratique (1760), Preface.
🕰️ This was one of Rameau’s very last writings, decades after his Traité de l’harmonie (1722).

🇫🇷 Original:

“C’est le chant qui conduit l’harmonie, non pas l’harmonie qui conduit le chant.”

🇬🇧 Translation:

“It is melody that guides harmony, not harmony that guides melody.”

💡 Meaning:

This is a complete reversal of his original theory, where harmonic roots were the cause of melody.
Now, Rameau admits that the melodic line determines the chords that accompany it, not vice versa.
He effectively abandons the “functional” model in favor of a melodic–contrapuntal one.

🧩 2. “Le fondement ne se fait pas toujours entendre.”

“The fundamental [bass] is not always heard.”

📖 Source: Nouveau système de musique théorique (1726), Chapter II.

🇫🇷 Original:

“Le fondement de l’harmonie ne se fait pas toujours entendre ; il est souvent sous-entendu par la liaison naturelle des accords.”

🇬🇧 Translation:

“The foundation of harmony is not always heard; it is often implied by the natural connection between chords.”

💡 Meaning:

Here he admits the theory doesn’t match what we actually hear.
To save his system, he invents the idea of an unheard fundamental bass — a concept so abstract that it undermines its own practicality.
Already, he’s distancing the “basse fondamentale” from reality.

⚛️ 3. “Tout procède du son générateur.”

“Everything proceeds from the generating sound.”

📖 Source: Génération harmonique (1737), Introduction.

🇫🇷 Original:

“Tout procède du son générateur, d’où naissent les consonances naturelles, et par suite, toute l’harmonie.”

🇬🇧 Translation:

“Everything proceeds from the generating sound, from which natural consonances arise, and consequently, all harmony.”

💡 Meaning:

He moves from functional logic (tonic–dominant) to acoustical logic (overtone generation).
Now, harmony is a natural phenomenon, not a theoretical construction of root progressions.
This marks his philosophical turn — from theory to metaphysics.

🧠 4. “Le sentiment du musicien est antérieur à la règle.”

“The musician’s feeling precedes the rule.”

📖 Source: Démonstration du principe de l’harmonie (1750), p. 6.

🇫🇷 Original:

“Le sentiment du musicien est antérieur à la règle : la nature le guide avant la théorie.”

🇬🇧 Translation:

“The musician’s feeling is prior to the rule: nature guides him before theory.”

💡 Meaning:

This is extraordinary — Rameau admits that composers intuit harmony before theory tries to explain it.
That means functional analysis comes after music, not before.
This is close to what later composers like Mozart and Chopin practiced — intuitive harmony before system.

🪞 5. “Je ne prétends point prescrire des lois au génie.”

“I do not pretend to prescribe laws to genius.”

📖 Source: Observations sur notre instinct pour la musique (1754).

🇫🇷 Original:

“Je ne prétends point prescrire des lois au génie ; je cherche seulement à rendre compte de ce qu’il fait.”

🇬🇧 Translation:

“I do not presume to prescribe laws to genius; I only seek to account for what it does.”

💡 Meaning:

Here, Rameau distances himself from being a lawgiver of harmony.
He now considers himself an observer of natural musical instinct, not a legislator.
That is a huge contrast to his early authoritarian tone in the Traité de l’harmonie.

🎯 Summary of evolution

Year

Work

Key Idea

Theoretical Direction

1722

Traité de l’harmonie

Harmony rules melody

Functional–mechanistic

1726

Nouveau système

Fundamental bass often unheard

Self-doubt begins

1737

Génération harmonique

Harmony = natural resonance

Metaphysical

1750

Démonstration

Feeling before rule

Empirical–psychological

1760

Code pratique

Melody leads harmony

Anti-functional

If you’d like, I can show you scans or transcriptions from the original 18th-century French editions (Gallica PDFs) where these quotes appear — so you can see the actual typography and phrasing Rameau used.

Would you like that next?

Beautiful question 🌙 — and very insightful.
If you want to follow Mozart’s education path, you’re not just studying “subjects,” you’re rebuilding the 18th-century musical mind: training ear, craft, and imagination together.

Let’s walk through it in stages — exactly how Mozart grew.

🎼 I. Foundational Stage (Ages 4–10) — “The Natural Ear”

Goal: absorb sound, not theory.

Study:

Keyboard technique (harpsichord → piano)

Play Bach’s Little Preludes, Inventions, and Mozart’s early minuets.
Train finger independence and clarity of tone.

Solfège & singing

Practice movable-do sight-singing daily.
Sing scales, simple intervals, and cadences — this is how Mozart internalized harmony.

Imitation writing

Copy short dance pieces (menuet, allemande) by hand.
Change the key or phrase length — this builds instinct for form.

🕯️ Mozart’s model: His father Leopold drilled imitation, singing, and variation — never abstract theory at this stage.

🎻 II. Middle Stage (Ages 10–16) — “The Craft of Composition”

Goal: learn the grammar of 18th-century music.

Study:

Counterpoint & Part Writing

Start with Fux, Gradus ad Parnassum — species counterpoint.
Then move to Bach’s 2- and 3-Part Inventions and chorales.
Learn to write two-voice counterpoint on a cantus firmus by hand.

Figured Bass (Thoroughbass)

Practice realizing bass lines in all keys.
Avoid modern “functional harmony” at first — this is pre-Rameau thinking.
Learn to hear intervals above the bass.

Classical forms

Analyze minuets, rondos, and simple sonata expositions.
Copy Mozart KV. 545 (C major Sonata) by hand and label each modulation.

🎓 Mozart’s sources: Johann Sebastian & Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Haydn, Sammartini.
His harmony came from keyboard practice, not Rameau’s theoretical roots.

🎶 III. Mature Stage (Ages 16–25) — “Theatrical Mind”

Goal: combine craft with human expression.

Study:

Italian opera and vocal composition

Study Pergolesi, Jommelli, Paisiello, Gluck.
Write short recitatives and arias; focus on text declamation and affect.

Instrumentation

Read Leopold Mozart’s Treatise on the Fundamentals of Violin Playing (1756).
Learn how each instrument speaks — Mozart orchestrated by ear.

Keyboard improvisation

Improvise variations and cadenzas on simple themes.
Learn harmonic sequences (circle of fifths, descending bass lines).

Score reading

Study Haydn’s quartets and symphonies — analyze voice leading between parts.

🎭 Mozart’s habit: copy others’ scores to “taste” their technique, not to memorize rules.

🎹 IV. Inner Philosophy — “Music as Speech”

Mozart once said:

“Melody is the essence of music; harmony is only its clothing.”

To follow this philosophy:

Always start from melody — then find the chords that fit it, not the other way.
Avoid modern Roman-numeral analysis at first.
Think like a singer, not a theoretician.

🪶 Recommended Texts & Practice Order

Step

Book / Material

Focus

Fux – Gradus ad Parnassum

Counterpoint (species)

J.S. Bach – Inventions & Sinfonias

Keyboard polyphony

C.P.E. Bach – Essay on the True Art of Keyboard Playing

Figured bass & expression

Leopold Mozart – Violinschule

Instrumental character

Haydn quartets

Texture & dialogue

Mozart operas (Idomeneo, Figaro)

Human expression

Copy & analyze Mozart autographs

Style integration

If you want, I can make you a 12-month “Mozart Curriculum” — month-by-month plan that reconstructs what he studied and practiced, adapted for modern learners (with PDFs, exercises, and listening list).

Would you like me to make that? 🎻

Music must be composed to be heard, not read.

This quote emphasizes Monteverdi’s view that music is meant to be performed and experienced, not merely analyzed or seen on paper. For him, the live experience of music was its ultimate expression.

"If the soul of music is not heard, then music is nothing more than noise."

Monteverdi was adamant that music’s power lies in its emotional resonance with the listener, rather than just technical perfection or complexity.

"Music is the most eloquent of all the arts."

This quote reflects Monteverdi's belief in the power of music to communicate and express emotions more directly than any other art form.

"The purpose of music is to move the soul."

Monteverdi was a pioneer in bridging the gap between Renaissance and Baroque music, emphasizing the emotional impact of music, which would become a hallmark of the Baroque period.

"I should be sorry if I only entertained them; I wish to make them better."

This quote speaks to Handel’s belief that music should have a higher purpose than just entertainment. He saw music as a way to uplift and inspire listeners.

"I live my life in a state of constant joy. The music I compose comes from a mind at rest, and I always feel blessed in my work."

Handel had a deep passion for music and felt that creating it brought him peace and fulfillment, which is evident in the exuberance of much of his music.

"When I am composing, I feel I am writing for the soul and heart, not just for the ears."

This quote captures Handel’s view of music as an emotional and spiritual experience. His oratorios, particularly Messiah, are revered for their ability to stir the heart.

I compose with the belief that music should be as powerful as a sermon. It should speak directly to the soul."

Handel’s oratorios, especially Messiah, are often seen as spiritual and deeply moving works. He believed music should have the power to transform, much like a religious sermon.

It is the melody which is the charm of music, and it is that which is most difficult to produce. The invention of a fine melody is a work of genius.

Joseph Haydn

If you want to know whether you have written anything worth preserving, sing it to yourself without any accompaniment.

Joseph Haydn

To talk well and eloquently is a very great art, but that an equally great one is to know the right moment to stop.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

I cannot write in verse, for I am no poet. I cannot arrange the parts of speech with such art as to produce effects of light and shade, for I am no painter. Even by signs and gestures I cannot express my thoughts and feelings, for I am no dancer. But I can do so by means of sounds, for I am a musician.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Melody is the essence of music.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

The language of music is common to all generations and nations; it is understood by everybody, since it is understood with the heart.

Gioachino Rossini

Heinrich Schenker’s opposition to Rameau’s functional harmony theory is rooted in Schenker’s holistic approach to music analysis, which focuses on linear and contrapuntal principles, rather than rigid, rule-based functional harmony. Here’s a detailed breakdown of how Schenker critically opposed the ideas of Rameau, both in terms of theory and practice:

🎼 1. Rameau’s Functional Harmony: The Basics

Jean-Philippe Rameau (1683–1764) was the first to systematize harmony as a functional system, where chords were categorized as tonic (I), dominant (V), and subdominant (IV). This approach was based on the idea that harmony functions as a chain of root movements that derive from the fundamental bass — the theoretical foundation for classical tonality.
Rameau’s functional harmony explained how chords interact based on their root position and functional roles in a harmonic progression, with tonic–dominant relationships being central.

🎻 2. Schenker’s Counter-Argument: Harmony as a Result of Voice Leading

**2.1 Schenker’s Focus on the Ursatz (Fundamental Structure)

Heinrich Schenker (1868–1935) was a music theorist who rejected the functional system of harmony as a primary basis for analysis.
Schenker’s analytical method focused not on the surface-level chord functions (as Rameau did) but on the underlying voice-leading and the fundamental structure of music, which he called the Ursatz.

The Ursatz is the deepest structural level of a piece, where melody and harmony are derived from a few basic, archetypal motions — typically from tonic (I) to dominant (V) and back to tonic (I).
Schenker emphasized that harmony is secondary to the linear motion of voices, and that a piece’s meaning and structure are best understood through the voice-leading and counterpoint, not through rigid functional analysis of chords.

2.2 Harmony as an Emergent Property of Counterpoint

Schenker believed that harmony emerged naturally from counterpoint, which was not based on functional labels, but on voice-leading principles.

Rather than analyzing chords in isolation based on their functional roles, Schenker’s method would analyze how a chord is related to the larger structure — how it resolves or connects to the larger melodic and harmonic goal.
For Schenker, the harmonic progression was not the primary focus of analysis. Instead, he looked at how melodic lines and counterpoint guided the listener through a piece, creating coherence and a sense of direction.

🎶 3. Schenker’s Theory Opposes Functional Harmony in Several Key Ways

3.1 Harmony Is Subordinate to Melody

Schenker argued that harmony in tonal music is a subordinate layer derived from melodic motion, not the fundamental structure driving the piece, as Rameau’s functional harmony suggests.
According to Schenker:

Functional harmony (T–D–S) and its rules do not explain why music works; instead, linear voice leading explains the music’s form and meaning.
Rameau’s functional harmony treats harmony as predefined and static, whereas Schenker’s voice-leading reveals that chords are derived from a deep melodic foundation and are not simply functional structures.

3.2 The Elimination of “Functional” Chord Roles

Schenker did not dismiss harmony altogether. However, he rejected the notion that each chord is assigned a strict functional role like tonic, dominant, or subdominant. Instead, all chords are seen in terms of their relation to the deep structure.
In Schenker’s view:

Functional roles like dominant or tonic are simply surface phenomena — the result of voice-leading, which derives from the underlying Ursatz.
In contrast to Rameau, who sees dominant and tonic as fixed relationships, Schenker sees harmonic tension and resolution as part of a broader melodic structure.

3.3 The Focus on Counterpoint

Counterpoint was the key to Schenker’s system, in which all harmonic motion is explained through the interaction of independent lines.

Schenker felt that Rameau’s functional harmony was too reductionist, as it only looked at chords in isolation, detached from their counterpoint.
Schenker believed that harmony is the result of how voices move — for example, a V-I progression is not simply a functional relationship but an outcome of voice-leading that results in harmonic closure.
Functional harmony looks at chords as isolated entities, whereas Schenker’s analysis shows how each harmonic event is the product of linear voice leading.

🧠 4. Schenker’s Holistic Approach to Tonality

Schenker’s concept of tonality stands in direct opposition to Rameau’s view of harmony as a fixed, functional system.

For Schenker, tonality was dynamic and fluid, evolving from linear motion.
Functional harmony, by contrast, treats tonality as a static system of dominant-tonic resolutions.

Schenker’s approach can be summed up with his famous term:

“The basis of all music lies in the melodic lines, not the harmonic functions.”

🌟 5. Summary: Schenker’s Critique of Rameau’s Functional Harmony

Aspect

Rameau’s Theory

Schenker’s Theory

Harmony Focus

Chords as functional entities (Tonic, Dominant, Subdominant)

Harmony is an emergent property of counterpoint and melody

Harmony Analysis

Based on harmonic functions and root progressions

Based on voice-leading and linear structures (Ursatz)

Tonality

Fixed by tonic-dominant relationships

Fluid, dynamic, and explained by melodic movement

Harmonic Progression

Functional movement (T → D → T)

Voice-leading leads to harmonic progressions

Counterpoint

Less emphasized in functional harmony

Central to understanding harmony

📚 6. Conclusion

Schenker’s opposition to Rameau’s functional harmony lies in his rejection of seeing harmony as a set of predefined functional roles. Instead, Schenker focused on the organic relationship between melody and harmony, where harmonic progression emerges from linear voice leading, not from rigid functions like tonic, dominant, or subdominant.

Schenker’s method reveals that true musical meaning arises from deep structural layers of counterpoint, motivic development, and melodic transformation, rather than from functional harmony's mechanistic analysis of chord roles.

Would you like me to dive into specific Schenkerian analyses of famous works to show how his method explains harmony differently than functional theory? Or perhaps explore how Schenker influenced modern music theory?

135

572

Exactly! Contrapuntal composers don’t just write a single melody with accompanying chords (like in functional harmony theory), but rather they focus on multiple independent voices that interact with each other in a harmonically rich and balanced way.

In counterpoint, each voice (or line) has its own melodic independence but still contributes to a harmonious overall structure. The harmony emerges from the interaction of these voices, not from a static system of chords.

Let’s break this down further:

🎶 1. Counterpoint: Multiple Independent Voices

1.1. Each Voice Is Independent

In counterpoint, each voice (whether it’s melodic or harmonic) is treated as an independent entity, with its own melodic movement, rhythm, and contour.
The melodies (or voices) are not bound by a harmonic progression of a single chord or function. Instead, voices are free to move in parallel, contrary, or oblique motion.

For example, in a fugue, each voice presents its own subject (melody), and harmonic motion arises naturally as each voice enters, interacts, and resolves.

🎹 2. How Harmony Emerges in Counterpoint

2.1. Harmony Is a Result of the Interaction of Voices

Harmony arises naturally from the interactions between voices. The individual melodies create the harmonic texture as they come together.
Chords are not predetermined or planned out in the traditional sense (like tonic, dominant, subdominant relationships), but emerge as byproducts of how the voices move together.

For instance, when two voices are moving stepwise in opposite directions (a technique known as contrary motion), they may create a consonant interval (e.g., a third or a fifth) or a dissonant interval (e.g., a seventh or ninth), forming the harmonic structure.

2.2. Chords Are Not Static

Chords in counterpoint are not static (like a functional harmony system with fixed roles for each chord); they are instead dynamic and context-dependent.

For example, a dominant seventh chord might appear in a contrapuntal context, but it isn’t viewed as a functional dominant chord (V7 → I). Instead, it’s understood as a harmonic tension that arises through the voices moving in parallel or contrary motion and is resolved when the voices resolve to a consonant interval.

🎶 3. The Role of Counterpoint in Compositional Process

3.1. The Art of Writing Multiple Melodies

Contrapuntal composers often start by writing multiple independent lines that will later form the harmonic structure.

Bach, for instance, would often write two or three voices independently, and the harmonic structure would emerge from how those voices interact. This approach is often called “horizontal harmony” because the harmony comes from the movement of the voices over time, rather than from a set of vertical chord progressions.

Composers like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven were master contrapuntists who could take multiple independent voices and weave them together to create complex and beautiful harmonic textures.

🎹 4. Practical Example: Bach’s Two-Part Invention (BWV 772)

In this piece, two voices move independently, and the harmony emerges from their interaction.

First voice: The melody moves stepwise (C → D → E → F) — creating a melodic line that does not follow a fixed harmonic progression.
Second voice: The second voice enters, and the two voices interact with each other. They combine to create intervals (thirds, fifths, sixths) that define the harmony at any given moment.

For example, at one point, one voice plays C (tonic), and the other plays G (dominant), creating a fifth. The harmonic structure emerges from this interplay, but the focus is on the melodic movement rather than a static chord.

🎻 5. The Classical Approach: Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony (1st Movement)

Even in a more orchestrally rich piece like Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, counterpoint still plays a central role in how the harmony is constructed:

First theme: The famous four-note motive (da-da-da-daah) is developed in two voices (strings and winds), which interlock and pass the motive back and forth.
Harmonic structure: The harmony in this passage is **created by the interaction of the voices, which often move in contrary motion. The dominant-to-tonic resolution occurs naturally, but the focus is on the linear development of the theme, rather than a rigid harmonic structure.

🌟 Conclusion: Multiple Voices, Not Just Melody + Chords

In counterpoint, composers work with multiple voices (or melodies), and harmony is the product of these voices interacting. The chords that emerge from this interaction are not rigidly functional, as in Rameau’s system, but are fluid and context-dependent, shaped by the movement of the voices and their independent melodic lines.

Key Points:

Counterpoint is the art of writing multiple independent voices that interact with one another to create harmony.
Harmony in counterpoint is not pre-determined or based on functional chords. Instead, it emerges from how the voices interact and resolve.
Chords are not static units but arise from linear motion, often resulting in non-functional harmony (e.g., modal chords, passing tones, and dissonances).

Would you like a more detailed analysis of a specific piece of counterpoint music, or perhaps a deeper dive into how Bach’s fugues create harmony through multiple voices?

Exactly! In contrapuntal composition, a Csus4 chord (or any other chord) would arise naturally from the interaction of the voices, rather than being a preconceived harmonic decision.

Here’s a breakdown of how that works:

1. Melody and Harmony in Counterpoint

In contrapuntal writing, harmony is derived from the independent motion of the voices (melodies), and not from a decision to place a specific chord at a specific moment.
For example, let’s say that two voices interact in such a way that they create a Csus4 chord:

One voice might be on C (the tonic) and another voice could be on F (the fourth above C), while a third voice could be on G (the fifth).
This creates a Csus4 chord, but it’s not because the composer intentionally decided to use a Csus4. Rather, the melodic interaction of the voices naturally forms that chord as a part of the voice-leading process.

2. The Emergence of a Csus4 Chord in Counterpoint

A Csus4 chord is typically formed when:

The fourth degree (F) is used in place of the third (E), and the tension of the fourth (F) wants to resolve to the third (E).

In contrapuntal writing, this suspension can happen in a very organic way:

The F (the suspended note) might resolve by step to E (the third), which is a perfect cadence into a C major chord (C–E–G).
Alternatively, the fourth (F) might be used to suspend a resolution, leaving the chord suspended for a while, creating harmonic tension.

This suspended chord might emerge naturally from the flow of voices and not be a conscious harmonic choice. In fact, the voice leading is the primary driver, and the chord formed is simply a byproduct of the counterpoint.

3. Example: Contrapuntal Approach to Csus4

Let’s take a hypothetical scenario in a contrapuntal context:

Suppose Voice 1 is moving from C to G (a common line in counterpoint: tonic to dominant).
Voice 2 might move from E (third of C major) to F (suspension note, 4th of C).
Voice 3 could be on G, maintaining the fifth of the C chord.

In this case:

At a moment, you’d have a C in the bass, F (suspension) in one voice, and G in another — forming a Csus4 chord.
The chord Csus4 isn’t a deliberate harmonic decision. It emerges as a natural result of the melodic motion and voice leading.

Later, the F might resolve to E, and the chord could resolve to C major, but the Csus4 was not the point of arrival — it was the result of how the voices moved.

4. Contrast with Functional Harmony

In functional harmony, a Csus4 chord would be deliberately chosen as a suspended chord to resolve into C major.
The composer would think, "I want a Csus4 here to create some tension before resolving to the tonic" — a functional harmonic choice.

In contrapuntal writing, the Csus4 chord happens without specific intention, simply as a result of the voice leading. It’s not about choosing a chord; it’s about how the individual voices happen to interact.

5. Conclusion:

In counterpoint, the Csus4 chord (or any other chord) arises spontaneously from the interaction of the voices. The voices lead to the formation of the chord naturally, rather than the composer deciding, "I want a Csus4 here."

It’s not about planning functional harmonic progressions — it's about the voices moving in relation to each other, creating harmony through their interrelations, and chords arising from the melodic interaction.

Does this clarify how contrapuntal composers might naturally form a Csus4 chord without thinking about it as a "functional" choice? Would you like to explore a real-world example from Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven?

Great! Let’s look at a real-world example from Mozart’s music where a suspended chord (like Csus4) might naturally arise in counterpoint, as a result of voice-leading and melodic motion. We’ll use Mozart’s Piano Sonata in C Major, K. 545, specifically the first movement, as it’s simple yet rich with contrapuntal writing.

Mozart’s Piano Sonata in C Major, K. 545 – First Movement

The first movement of Mozart’s Piano Sonata K. 545 (which is in sonata form) is based on clear melodies and harmonic progressions, but even in this seemingly simple piece, counterpoint is employed subtly.

Let’s examine bars 1–4, where we find a Csus4 chord that emerges naturally from the interplay of voices.

Bars 1–4 of the Exposition:

Key: C Major

Bar 1: C Major (I) in the bass.

The melody starts on C (tonic), and the bass holds C (tonic).

Bar 2: Moving to G7 (V7), the dominant chord.

The upper voice resolves stepwise from C to D (the 7th of G7), creating harmonic tension.
The bass moves from C to G (dominant).

Bar 3: Csus4.

The upper voice resolves from D (the suspended note) to E (the 3rd of C major).
The bass holds C, which keeps the tonic harmony.
Resulting chord: C (tonic), F (sus4), G (5th), creating Csus4.

Bar 4: C Major (I).

The suspension (F) resolves down to E, completing the C major triad.

How the Csus4 Emerges in Counterpoint:

In this case, the Csus4 chord arises naturally due to the voice leading and melodic movement:

The upper voice moves from C to D to E.
The bass moves from C to G to C (tonic).
The F (the suspended fourth) comes into play because the upper voice holds on to a note (the 4th above the tonic) before resolving it to the 3rd (E).

Thus, Csus4 is not a deliberate harmonic choice. It arises because:

The melody moves to F (the suspended note).
The bass holds C, which completes the suspended chord.
The suspension resolves to E in the next bar, completing the C major triad.

Voice Leading and Interaction:

The upper voice: C (tonic) → D (suspension) → E (3rd of C major).
The bass voice: C → G (dominant) → C (tonic).

This simple exchange of melodic lines results in harmonic structures, and the Csus4 is a byproduct of voice leading, not a pre-planned harmonic goal. The voice leading naturally creates a suspended 4th (F) as a passing note before resolving to E.

Conclusion: The Csus4 in Mozart’s Music

In Mozart’s contrapuntal writing, such as in this piano sonata, chords like Csus4 emerge organically from the interactions of voices and melodic motion. The composer is not thinking in terms of functional harmony (like "I want a Csus4 here"), but rather, the voices move independently, and the chord forms as a result of their interaction.

This is a prime example of how counterpoint works: the harmony arises from the voices, and the resulting chords, including suspended chords, are not imposed but emerge naturally from how the melodies interact.

Would you like me to analyze a more complex section from Mozart or another composer’s contrapuntal music to show how this process works in greater depth?

In apparent disregard for the fundamental changes in musical style that occurred around 1600, theorists throughout the seventeenth century continued to take two-part species counterpoint as the basis of composition. Chromaticism, florid embellishment, the musico-rhetorical figures, and other typical characteristics of seventeenth-century music, were treated as so many embellishments to simple lines composed one-by-one against a cantus firmus in the tenor or bass.

Probably the most famous and fundamental pattern taught in the partimento method was the vaunted ‘règle de l’octave’, or ‘rule of the octave’.This provided an elementary guide for harmonising diatonic scales and scale segments. At the same time, it became a basis for learning to improvise within – and between – key systems

Once a student assimilated many of these model progressions, through incessant repetition and transposition, the next step was to learn to elaborate and vary them. We can see a published example of such a partimenti-inspired approach in an important treatise on harmony written by one of the founding members of the Paris Conservatoire, Charles-Simon Catel (1773–1830). Catel’s Traité d’harmonie earned fame by being adopted by the newly-founded Conservatoire in 1802 as its ‘official’ textbook.19

Catel rejected Rameau’s fundamental bass as too abstract and pedantic for learning harmony. Instead, he devised a method inspired by the model of partimento instruction whereby a student memorised a basic chord pattern to play on a keyboard, and then varied it using three classical techniques of elaboration: prolongation (suspension), chromatic alteration and substitution.

Harmony courses were designed in the nineteenth century for middle-class amateurs who wanted a course “about” music, but who did not want to spend the years of apprenticeship required to become a professional musician. Believe it or not, thousands of f ine composers like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky would have failed a modern collegiate examination in “Harmony 101.” They had a sophisticated knowledge of harmony but they never experienced the draconian simplifications of real music that make harmony courses possible (e.g., roman numerals, harmonic functions, etc.).

MELODY FIRST At the old conservatories in Naples, young students (7–10 years old) would first spend a couple of years working on singing exercises (solfeggi, pronounced “sole-FEDGE-y). Through solfeggi (which were accompanied at the harpsichord) they learned tones, intervals, melodic figures and—most importantly— how melodies would fit together with basses and chords. So let’s begin with melodies. . . .

在现在普遍的“和声学“所包含的18世纪到19世纪中叶音乐的范围内适用的具体的几个核心关键词是通奏低音（de: Generalbass; eng: Thorough-bass; it: basso continuo; fr: basse continue）和音乐模型（德语界的Satzmodelle和英语界的Galant Schemata）。1600-1800这整个时期甚至都可以被称为通奏低音时期（Das Generalbasszeitalter）。当时并没有19世纪末Hugo Riemann设立的和声功能理论（Funktionstheorie）和同时代的音级标记（Stufentheorie），18世纪的音乐教学强调的是基于通奏低音的演奏和创作。这种低音的轮廓所主导的和声/对位一直沿用到了至少瓦格纳。在那不勒斯的孤儿音乐学院（Conservatorio）中，学生会从演唱，在键盘上即兴实现对位和数字低音来学习音乐。在不断的练习中他们达到了一种对于音乐的熟练。当然它们也会有下笔的练习。在这个完整体系的培养中，他们习得的更是一种实践性的本领，一种音乐创作的能力，一种对于惯例的沉浸，而不是一种现在所说的“和声学”（Harmonielehre），一种规定性的，试图以追求科学外表而正当化自身，正当化音乐正统作品（canonical musical works）的幻想。

Franz Liszt’s formal training in harmony followed the early 19th‑century Viennese tradition rather than a direct study of Rameau’s treatise. In Vienna (1822–23) Liszt studied piano with Carl Czerny and theory/composition with Antonio Salieri. Salieri “immediately offered to teach [the 10‑year‑old Liszt] ‘general bass [figured bass], score reading in diverse genres, and composition .

In sum, Liszt learned harmony and counterpoint through practical score work (figured bass and species counterpoint) rather than studying Rameau’s theoretical system by name.

There is no evidence that Liszt formally learned Rameau’s Traité de l’harmonie.Liszt’s teachers focused on reading scores, writing figured-bass realizations and practicing voice-leading.Thus Liszt’s formal training leaned on contrapuntal and harmonic drills of the era; it did not involve explicit study of Rameau’s functional-harmonic theory as a separate school. (For context, Salieri had also taught Schubert, and his curriculum there included similar harmony and counterpoint training

Apparently Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms ALL studied along the lines of Fux, and disagreed with much of Rameau's teachings.

Weber’s Stufentheorie (as it was later called by German pedagogues) was certainly not ‘theory’ in the way that older theorists such as Jean-Philippe Rameau would have understood the term (even though Weber used the term in the title of his magnum opus). His was a practical and baldly empirical approach to harmony – much as with Anton Reicha. He saw no need to justify his chords with abstruse theories of acoustical generation or geometric proportions. The inversional equivalence of chords was accepted as a given, without any need to justify it through a lengthy scientific explanation. Designating a scale degree by its Roman numeral and inversional position was simply an efficient way to define, label and calibrate any chord within a given key.

It is no wonder that this approach became the most popular and widespread notation for musical harmony in the nineteenth century, adopted by conservatories and teachers in virtually every country in Europe. Germany was one exception, where Stufentheorie found itself in competition with a theory of harmonic functions pioneered by Hugo Riemann, to be discussed shortly. Indeed, Roman numerals remain to this day probably the most widely used nomenclature to designate tonal harmonies.

While the fundamental bass initially attracted adherents in Rameau’s own day as a bona fide scientific theory worthy of Newton, it is all the more surprising to observe how quickly its popularity faded towards the end of the century, when it was criticised as too rigid to be pedagogically effective. Its apparent demise was marked by the rejection of the fundamental bass by the founding members of the French Conservatoire and their adoption of Catel’s more empirical textbook of 1802, informed by partimento practices.27

“With most of these composers it was about the voice-leading in the underlying harmony. The practice of reducing almost everything to some kind of II–V, in fact the whole tradition of reducing everything to named vertical structures—what is the word I’m looking for—sucks.”

The strongest indication that the entire melody and bass line of a chorale-setting were written down before the inner parts of any phrase were worked out is provided by the score of the final movement of Cantata 43, a setting of "Du Lebensfiirst, Herr Jesu Christ

The various musical styles Wolfgang was exposed to would all find their way into the mix which would eventually comprise his own musical language- the simple, sweet, melodic ,vocally- inspired writing in short, symmetrical phrases of the Italians; the elegant, intimate, tasteful Galant elements from the French Rococo; the stately, almost austere simplicity and breadth from the operas of Gluck; the orchestral fire and singing quality from Mannheim musicians ; the intense, dramatic, highly expressive, aesthetics of Emanuel Bach, a very important son of JS Bach; and the passionate, so-called Stürm und Drang writing of Haydn and other composers around 1770. Mozart would never have been able to write as he did without having been taken on these travels in his childhood.

He did receive income from some private teaching for which he was paid very handsomely. However, teaching bored him. He would rather have been playing billiards, and on occasion even suggested that he and the student play billiards instead of having a lesson.

One scholar has estimated that Mozart wrote music on the average of eight hours a day, every day of his adult life. He eventually purchased a raised desk at which he could stand, rather than sustain the aches and pains from perpetually sitting hunched over a table. It was very time-consuming writing down millions and millions of notes with a quill pen. Mozart wrote very neatly, and his writing never appeared to be hurried.

Mozart’s compositional process was to first work out the entire composition in his head. The ideas came effortlessly, and his mind was constantly composing. Even while playing billiards his mind was composing music. Sometimes at the end of a billiards game he would sit down at the piano and perform the piece he had composed in his head during the game.

But the impression that everything was effortless for Mozart is not accurate. He wrote: “It is a mistake to think that the practice of my art has become easy to me. I assure you, dear friend, no one has given so much care to the study of composition as I. There is scarcely a famous master in music whose works I have not frequently and diligently studied.” This brings to mind Johann Sebastian Bach’s comment that “I have had to work hard; anyone who works just as hard will get just as far.” How I wish that were true! However, Bach and Mozart’s comments have merit in that they remind us to not overlook the discipline, work ethic, and sheer labor required even for geniuses.However imminent a deadline might be, he never lowered his standards, and was always continuously growing and evolving into a deeper, more complex, and sophisticated composer. I believe that Mozart’s music can frequently be viewed as a conversation --with another person, or with oneself. He frequently stated that his music should “flow like oil.” Mozart wrote: “It is much easier to play rapidly than slowly. But is it beautiful? If there is no fire in the composition one will never get it by hurrying.” Empty virtuosity meant nothing to Mozart and he faulted the virtuoso, Clementi, for “ lacking a penny’s worth of feeling or taste.“ One cannot fully understand any composer’s keyboard music without an understanding of the composer’s output in all genres and in Mozart’s case this is especially true. I have gained profound insights into the interpretation of Mozart’s keyboard music from witnessing the incomparable James Levine conduct the seven most significant Mozart operas, and from studying the operas in detail .Pianists will be most successful if they view themselves as operatic characters singing the keyboard melodies. After all, performing Mozart at the piano should emulate the music -making of a great singer – knowing what one is singing about, shaping the phrases, and knowing where to breathe. Mozart’s keyboard music frequently is modelled on the writing for a string quartet or an orchestra, and a pianist will benefit from interpreting it as if it were being played by a string quartet or orchestra. It is important that the bass lines and the inner voices be sufficiently highlighted. The fiery and volatile virtuoso Horowitz even said late in his life: “I like it more than any other music. Mozart is number one.”Mozart was an improviser, and the performance of his music should always sound improvised. As we have discussed, Mozart could be gregarious, spontaneous, impulsive, childlike, mischievous, and a fun loving prankster. Chopin’s music ,which contains information very relevant to the playing of Mozart’s music, since there is much more affinity between the music of these two composers than is often realized. I have long believed that Chopin’s music can be viewed as overpedalled Mozart and as Mozartean chromaticism on steroids. After all, along with J.S.Bach, Mozart was Chopin’s primary model.

‘THE TRUE FUNDAMENTALS OF COMPOSITION’: HAYDN'S PARTIMENTO COUNTERPOINT

Abstract

In his autobiographical sketch Joseph Haydn claims to have learned the ‘true fundamentals of composition’ from Nicola Porpora. Porpora (1686–1768) was a student of Gaetano Greco at the Conservatorio dei Poveri in Naples and later himself became a maestro at the Conservatorio di San Onofrio, where Francesco Durante also taught. That Haydn's teacher Porpora came from the centre of the partimento tradition, which has attracted increased scrutiny by music theorists in recent years, justifies examining Haydn's relationship with this long-standing pedagogical method and compositional practice. In this essay I analyse the sources that shed light on Porpora's relationship to the partimento tradition and on Haydn's relationship to Porpora. Focusing on partimento counterpoint, I examine several of Haydn's fugues in contrasting genres in order to illustrate how the principles of thoroughbass and partimento help to explain particular structural procedures in Haydn's music, as well as the compositional processes that produced them.

The young composer's endeavors in letting his soul form beautiful melodies can never be truly aided by theory.

in essence, composition must be taught by the composer; the theorist can only teach theory, no matter how refined the method.

Unlike theoretical guidance, practical guidance in the composer's craft is committed to the masterartisan relationship that was abandoned in textbook instruction. The didactic literature of earlier ages, too, was addressed to the individual, not to classes. The following chapters will thus be concerned with documents that show the timehonored direct and special exchange between teacher and student in an age when individualism, though strengthened in so many other ways, was abrogated in the teaching of musical composi tion..

His pupils had to begin their studies by learning pure fourpart thoroughbass. From this he went to chorales; first he added the basses to them himself, and they had to invent the alto and tenor. Then he taught them to devise the basses themselves.Bach introduced his students to the basic principles of partwriting through a com pendium which has been preserved in two copies. The earlier one was written down by Anna Magdalena Bach (and completed by a copyist). Entitled "Some Most Necessary Rules of Thorough Bass by J. S. B.," it systematically lists the common combinations of figures used for thoroughbass harmonization, how they may be expanded, and what dou blings to avoid. The later and larger one is a manuscript once owned by Johann Peter Kellner whose copies of various Bach works constitute important sources. It contains, in an unidentified hand, a number of exercises which, as is evident from their poor execution, were not reviewed by Bach.2 What is readily discernible from the Kellner manuscript, however, is that Bach stressed a richness of thoroughbass texture, unusual for his period, but well known to us from his own works.

She remained the composer's friend throughout her life, and her unusual gift and personality prompted Handel to write out a set of manuscripts, carefully preserved, in which the rudiments of the art of compo sition are presented with extraordinary precision and beauty of penmanship.

Dissonance, however, is not dealt with as an isolated problem of thoroughbass reali zation (there is no specific discussion of dissonant chords) but as an integral part of all study phases. Passing and neighboring dissonances are introduced with the opening pre sentation of the triad in root position, and the suspended chord enters the course and studies with the same ease as the altered chord. Chromaticism and suspension through seventhchord inversions appear simply as attributes of fluent partwriting, and the inter val of the seventh itself is not introduced with the connotation of constituting a new "chord" but as a suspension of the sixth, just as the fourth is introduced as a suspension of the third

The existence of this copy suggests that Haydn's own volume was lent out on occasion for purposes of study—as shall be discussed below, it is likely that for a time it passed into the hands of Mozart. Thus the composer who was born before the youngest Bach son and who died in the year that saw the publications of Beethoven's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Symphonies, was the mentor through whom the didactic heritage of the Baroque passed directly to later generations. Among his numerous students were the brothers of Carl Maria von Weber.

The influence of contrapuntal studies upon Mozart's work can be seen in three distinct phases: the first impetus, resulting from the meetings with Martini; the association with Haydn, beginning in the early 1780s; and his exploration of the music of Bach and Handel

That the troublesome question of parallels was uppermost in the mind of the nine teenthcentury composer in his role as conscientious craftsman is shown not only in the letters of Tchaikovsky but also in a remarkable document from the hand of Brahms Enti tled Octaven u. Quinten u. A. (Octaves, Fifths, and Other Matters), it contains about 140 examples of "faulty" progressions in the works of composers ranging from Palestrina to Bizet, to which Brahms has added his remarks ("very unpleasant to me," "not praisewor thy, "^"explained or justified easily enough," "intentional fifths," or even "NB beautiful fifths"). To the modern reader the manuscript is available in a particularly interesting form since it was issued in a facsimile edition by Heinrich Schenker who added his own com mentary.4 But his sensitive interpretation singles out a critical point: Brahms is not speak ing to a student, and his marginalia represent merely a challenge, not a systematic reformulation, of tutorial rules; they form, as Schenker says, an "artistic soliloquy."

^ Strauss was at that time teaching his fourteenyearold grandson from the pages of Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum, the original text of which had practically disappeared since the days of Haydn and Mozart.

Zoltan Kodaly introduced his students to counterpoint by refusing to accept their chorale harmonizations unless the inner parts were enlivened imaginatively; only then were they initiated into formal studies. He gave them excerpts from scores of Haydn quartets from which the viola part had been removed. They were then asked to supply their own versions and compare what they had written with the original. He also gave them copies of Marenzio madrigals without any original or editorial accidentals, leaving to them all decisions regarding cadences and melodic phrase structure.

Mozart composed his works “in his head”. The act of actually notating the music on paper – “copying out” as Mozart called it – was a necessary last step, but not, for him, part of the actual compositional process.

According to his wife Constanze, at these moments Mozart composed music:

“As if he were writing a letter.”

Then again, according to Constanze:

“When some grand conception was working in his brain, he was purely abstracted, walking about the apartment, and knew not what was going on around him.”

In a letter to his father Leopold, written while he finishing the composition of Idomeneo in 1780, Mozart wrote:

“Well, I must close, for I must now write at breakneck speed. Everything has been composed, but not yet written down.”

As we observed in my post of April 10, Mozart’s musical memory was so highly developed that he could retain entire works of music – note for note – in his head. Yes, that’s just a bit scary. On April 8, 1781, while he was in Vienna, Mozart wrote his father:

“Today we had a concert, where three of my compositions were performed – new ones, of course; a rondo for [the violinist Antonio] Brunetti; an aria for Ceccarelli, which he had to encore; and a sonata with violin accompaniment for myself [the G Major K. 379], which I copied out last night between eleven and twelve. In order to finish it, I only wrote out the violin part for Brunetti and retained my own part in my head.”

This sort of thing happened all the time. In his Anecdotes of Mozart, published in 1804, Jean-Baptiste-Antoine Suard writes:

“It came about one day that, having to do a piece for a court concert, [Mozart] had no time to write out the part he was to play. The Emperor Joseph, happening to glance at the music paper which Mozart appeared to be following, was astonished to see nothing but staves without notes, and he said to him: ‘Where is your part?’ – ‘There’, said Mozart, putting his hand to his forehead.”

In particular, Bach was immersed in the pre-Rameau thoroughbass tradition as represented by the writings of Johann David Heinichen.In contrast to many modern harmonic perspectives, chordal roots and root progressions played little to no role in the pre-Rameau thoroughbass tradition.Dis sonance was understood not harmonically, but dyadically in terms of syncopatio (suspension) and transitus (passing and neighbor) figures.

Chief among the ideas that need to be excluded are the concepts of chordal roots and root progressions as presented in the theories of Jean-Philippe Ra meau (1683–1764). Root-oriented thinking in the Rameauian model has so deeply pene trated nearly every aspect of present-day music theory (even if received nowadays through an intermediary source) that it is difficult to imagine tonal analysis without it. Yet there is scant evidence to suggest that Bach or any of his German-speaking contempora ries thought in terms of chordal roots or root progressions as we conceive of them today or as defined by Rameau. It was only after Bach’s death that Rameau’s ideas began to be disseminated into German-speaking lands. it was thoroughbass theory that held pride of place in Bach’s conception of compositional pedagogy.

the technique of multiple-bass chorale harmonization was certainly well known in some eighteenth-century German circles and that it survived well into the nineteenth century with connections to prominent musicians like Robert Schumann and Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy.

In composition he [J. S. Bach] went directly to what was practical with his students, omitting all the dry species of counterpoint given by Fux and others. His pupils had to begin by learning pure four-part thoroughbass. From this he went to chorales; first he added the bass to them himself, and they had to invent the alto and tenor. Then he taught them to make the basses themselves. He particularly insisted in the writing out of the thoroughbass in parts. His instruction in fugue began with two-voice ones, and so on [Inventions and Sinfonias?]. The realization of a thorough bass and the introduction to chorales are without doubt the best method of studying composi tion, as far as harmony is concerned [emphasis added].16

C. Ph. E. Bach’s reply was unequivocal (and devastating for Marpurg): “You can loudly proclaim that my and my late father’s principles are anti-Rameauian.

Heimann continues that, in reducing all harmony to two chords and their inversions (the triad and dominant seventh) – as Rameau does – Kirnberger has left behind the seven teenth-century thoroughbass tradition, to which J. S. Bach was heir.

Bass Degrees, Not Chordal Roots Our reconstruction of theoretical paratext in Bach’s circle begins by establishing the impor tance of the bass degree in contemporaneous analytical and compositional thinking.

Bach’s method of teaching chorale harmonization relied on the concept of bass degree. Bach’s apparent analytical attention given to bass degrees .

One problem with the dyadic model of dissonance in a polyphonic context, however, is the question of where to measure intervals from. In thoroughbass theory, one tends to measure from the bass. Intervals involving the bass are termed “primary.” But intervals not involving the bass (between two upper voices) – “secondary intervals” – still play an important role in Heinichen’s theories. A disregard for secondary intervals has led some modern writers to misrepresent pre-Rameau thoroughbass as primitive.

This conceptual pyramid proceeds through the following hierarchical stages: (1) the local key,59 (2) the bass scale degree, (3) primary intervals, and (4) secondary intervals. In some ways, it is easy to see why modern accounts of thoroughbass often exclude secondary intervals, for secondary intervals are not directly indicated in an analysis like that made by Kayser in Example 9. That is why the peak of this conceptual pyramid is so important, because secondary intervals do indeed exert a great deal of influence on Heinichen’s understanding of harmony. Like all theories of tonal music, Heinichen’s theory depends on a clear division between consonance and dissonance.

Modern theory pedagogues are prone to making statements like, “The seventh is dissonant and must therefore re solve.” But such a-contextual comments are of little use, since they do not tell us which of the voices is the agent and which is the patient. In other words, it does not tell us which note involved in the interval of a seventh must resolve – the upper or the lower one. We cannot even determine whether the dissonance is a syncopatio, supersyncopa tio, or transitus, since the context is lacking.

Thus far, our reconstruction of music-theoretical paratext in Bach’s day has established the following points: (1) the bass scale degree, not the chordal root, is a central harmonic determinant in pre-Rameau thoroughbass theory in eighteenth-century Germany; (2) the 5/3 chord and 6/3 chord are the only two consonant harmonies; (3) all other chords are dissonant, containing dyadic syncopatio or transitus figures with auxiliary voices; and (4) secondary intervals are necessary in judging contrapuntal context of thoroughbass figures. We now turn to the pedagogy of one of Bach’s favored students, Kittel, and his use of clausulae in chorale harmonization.

Thoroughbass was begun after a half year. How useful it was to already have knowledge of in tervals. I did not have to laboriously count out the thirds, sevenths, and so forth – I simply grabbed them. However, the avoidance of [parallel] octaves and fifths, together with the strict requirement of my Lehrmeister that the top voice should always form a melody gave me plenty to do.

In my critique of Kirnberger’s theory of essential vs. non-essential dissonance, I argued that the search for roots in dissonant chords distracts from underlying contrapuntal processes.

Unlike Rameau’s basse fondamentale, the intervallic motion between the roots of consecutive chords (i.e. chord progression) is of no significance to trias harmonica theory.

Applying Paratext: How to Compose Multiple Basses to a Chorale At the beginning of this article, we saw how Bach’s compositional pedagogy very likely involved the composition of multiple basses to a given chorale in the simpler Choralbuch style rather than the ornamented Choralgesang style (Ex. 1–7). Example 8 posed the ques tion of how students in Bach’s circle would have approached the harmonization of the chorale “Jesu meine Freude.” The remainder of this article attempted to reconstruct a historically grounded music-theoretical paratext for this task. To summarize, we have seen that: 84 Peter Wollny (2008, 226–227) has suggested that modularity plays a key role in Bach’s creative process. See also Remeš (Forthcoming [b]) regarding the principle of modularity in a newly discovered organ improvisation treatise by Jacob Adlung dating from c. 1726–27. DEREK REMEŠ – Like Heinichen, Bach held the principles of composition to be derived from thorough bass (testimonal for Wild; see note 36). – Bach’s understanding of harmony likely involved identifying the scale degree of the bass voice (Ex. 9). – There is a paucity of evidence to suggest that Bach or his German contemporaries thought in terms of chordal roots or root progressions, as claimed by Kirnberger and as is common today. – Heinichen’s treatise, which may represent some of Bach’s views, holds syncopatio and transitus to be the two fundamental types of dissonance (Ex. 10). – A nuanced understanding of thoroughbass requires the consideration of secondary intervals (Ex. 11–14). – Bach’s pupil, Kittel, viewed chorale harmonization in terms of modular, linked clausu lae (Ex. 15–20). – Seventeenth-century cadential theory identified which clausula was placed in the bass (Ex. 21). – Some cadential patterns, like a leaping tenor clausula in the bass, cannot be accounted for in traditional cadential theory (Ex. 22). – By assuming that even dissonant chords have roots, Kirnberger’s theory of essential and non-essential dissonance disregards the traditional dyadic view of dissonance and obscures underlying contrapuntal phenomena (Ex. 23). – Trias harmonica theory, which was coterminous to Bach, recognizes chordal roots in consonant harmonies, but neither asserts that dissonant harmonies have roots nor tracks the progressions of chordal roots between harmonies (Ex. 23). – Heinichen’s theory of Verwechselung, which also appears in C. Ph. E. Bach’s treatise, recognizes inversional equivalence without asserting the primacy of a chordal root, as Rameau and Kirnberger do (Ex. 24). – Newer notions of cadential closure in the early eighteenth century discarded tradition al clausulae theory, instead tracking bass motion, dissonance, diminution, and caden tial evasion (Ex. 25–28). – A source from Bach’s circle (the anonymous Vorschriften und Grundsätze) suggests that Bach’s teaching used the newer, non-clausulae-based manner of cadential classi fication and viewed cadences as modular units (Ex. 28).

Mozart was the ultimate multi-tasker, able to compose a new work in his head even as he copied out a different one on paper. For example, on April 20, 1782, he sent a newly composed prelude and fugue to his sister with the following cover letter:

“I send you herewith a prelude and a three-part fugue [in C Major, K. 394]. The reason I did not reply to your letter at once was that, on account of the wearisome labor of writing these small notes, I could not finish the composition any sooner. And, even so, it is awkwardly done, for the prelude ought to come first and the fugue to follow. But I composed the fugue first, and wrote it down while I was thinking out the prelude.”

“Given Mozart’s dislike of writing anything down, it is entirely natural that a large number of his works were simply never written down. Strange though it may sound, only a part of his oeuvre has survived: the rest he himself kept from us.”

Haydn, for instance, taught himself from the Gradus; although Haydn's original copy with workbook answers was lost in World War II, copies of his handwritten marginal notes survive, along with a commentary on it that he wrote for his students. Beethoven too wrote an introduction to the text for the purpose of teaching his own pupils. Telemann, Chopin, Liszt, Schubert, and Brahms are also known to have owned a translation of the text; many other big names were taught using derivatives of Fux's work, though perhaps not provably from the pages of the Gradus.

music

🎵 1. “Le chant conduit l’harmonie.”

🇫🇷 Original:

🇬🇧 Translation:

💡 Meaning:

🧩 2. “Le fondement ne se fait pas toujours entendre.”

🇫🇷 Original:

🇬🇧 Translation:

💡 Meaning:

⚛️ 3. “Tout procède du son générateur.”

🇫🇷 Original:

🇬🇧 Translation:

💡 Meaning:

🧠 4. “Le sentiment du musicien est antérieur à la règle.”

🇫🇷 Original:

🇬🇧 Translation:

💡 Meaning:

🪞 5. “Je ne prétends point prescrire des lois au génie.”

🇫🇷 Original:

🇬🇧 Translation:

💡 Meaning:

🎯 Summary of evolution

🎼 I. Foundational Stage (Ages 4–10) — “The Natural Ear”

Study:

🎻 II. Middle Stage (Ages 10–16) — “The Craft of Composition”

Study:

🎶 III. Mature Stage (Ages 16–25) — “Theatrical Mind”

Study:

🎹 IV. Inner Philosophy — “Music as Speech”

🪶 Recommended Texts & Practice Order

🎼 1. Rameau’s Functional Harmony: The Basics

🎻 2. Schenker’s Counter-Argument: Harmony as a Result of Voice Leading

**2.1 Schenker’s Focus on the Ursatz (Fundamental Structure)

2.2 Harmony as an Emergent Property of Counterpoint

🎶 3. Schenker’s Theory Opposes Functional Harmony in Several Key Ways

3.1 Harmony Is Subordinate to Melody

3.2 The Elimination of “Functional” Chord Roles

3.3 The Focus on Counterpoint

🧠 4. Schenker’s Holistic Approach to Tonality

🌟 5. Summary: Schenker’s Critique of Rameau’s Functional Harmony

📚 6. Conclusion

🎶 1. Counterpoint: Multiple Independent Voices

1.1. Each Voice Is Independent

🎹 2. How Harmony Emerges in Counterpoint

2.1. Harmony Is a Result of the Interaction of Voices

2.2. Chords Are Not Static

🎶 3. The Role of Counterpoint in Compositional Process

3.1. The Art of Writing Multiple Melodies

🎹 4. Practical Example: Bach’s Two-Part Invention (BWV 772)

🎻 5. The Classical Approach: Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony (1st Movement)

🌟 Conclusion: Multiple Voices, Not Just Melody + Chords

Key Points:

1. Melody and Harmony in Counterpoint

2. The Emergence of a Csus4 Chord in Counterpoint

3. Example: Contrapuntal Approach to Csus4

4. Contrast with Functional Harmony

5. Conclusion:

Mozart’s Piano Sonata in C Major, K. 545 – First Movement

Bars 1–4 of the Exposition:

How the Csus4 Emerges in Counterpoint:

Voice Leading and Interaction:

Conclusion: The Csus4 in Mozart’s Music

いいなと思ったら応援しよう！