# Roman numerals are for amateurs!



## Bwv 1080

But I am one, so I use them

Wish I had learned this in music school though, figured bass works much better for playing or creating music


----------



## hammeredklavier

For a second (upon reading the title) I thought MR had returned.


----------



## tdc

A while ago MR posted a topic where he suggested Bach was critical of Rameau's theory of harmony and he suggested Bach was old fashioned in his outlook on music. I responded that Rameau's theory was a simplification of the contrapuntal approach to composition. So yes, I have basically thought this for a long time (I don't think MR does, he views counterpoint as a more old fashioned and outdated approach to music making as far as I can tell). 

Perhaps this is also related to why Bach didn't write any books on composition but used his music as his teaching material.


----------



## Bwv 1080

My view is just pedagogical - no higher truth here. Roman numerals, inversions and fundamental bass are reasonable concepts, but seem to be unnecessary distractions in performing, improvising or composing. ISTM the brain can process ‘6 on fa’ faster than ‘ii chord in C major in first inversion) I doubt Bach had any philosophical axe to grind against Rameau’s system, he just did not need it (and Rameau is not what the video refers to).


----------



## pianozach

Bwv 1080 said:


> My view is just pedagogical - no higher truth here. Roman numerals, inversions and fundamental bass are reasonable concepts, but seem to be unnecessary distractions in performing, improvising or composing. ISTM the brain can process '6 on fa' faster than 'ii chord in C major in first inversion) I doubt Bach had any philosophical axe to grind against Rameau's system, he just did not need it (and Rameau is not what the video refers to).


All the facets of music notation are not designed for composing, rather, they are for communicating somehow what the composer hears inside their head.

Writing down music is what happens AFTER the composing.


----------



## Bwv 1080

pianozach said:


> All the facets of music notation are not designed for composing, rather, they are for communicating somehow what the composer hears inside their head.
> 
> Writing down music is what happens AFTER the composing.


Begs the question on how composers learn to hear music in their head and how efficiently and quickly they can translate and communicate it. The great composers of the 18th and 19th centuries did not get these skills with undergrad theory 101 Roman numeral analysis. It was thousands of hours of training with figured bass patterns


----------



## pianozach

Bwv 1080 said:


> Begs the question on how composers learn to hear music in their head and how efficiently and quickly they can translate and communicate it. The great composers of the 18th and 19th centuries did not get these skills with undergrad theory 101 Roman numeral analysis. It was thousands of hours of training with figured bass patterns


You sure about that?


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> A while ago MR posted a topic where he suggested Bach was critical of Rameau's theory of harmony and *he suggested Bach was old fashioned in his outlook on music. I responded that Rameau's theory was a simplification of the contrapuntal approach to composition.* So yes, I have basically thought this for a long time (I don't think MR does, he views counterpoint as a more old fashioned and outdated approach to music making as far as I can tell).
> 
> Perhaps this is also related to why Bach didn't write any books on composition but used his music as his teaching material.


MR did not have much proficiency in the music theory of any style of music, knew little about harmony in classical music and virtually nothing about counterpoint.


----------



## elgar's ghost

No disrespect, BW1080, but I wonder if this is a thread that seems to belong in Select Appeal Central,. That said, I tried solving a long division puzzle using roman numerals and it completely blasted out my mind.


----------



## Bwv 1080

EdwardBast said:


> MR did not have much proficiency in the music theory of any style of music, knew little about harmony in classical music and virtually nothing about counterpoint.


Bright guy, but struck me a as a Dunning Kruger poster child


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> MR did not have much proficiency in the music theory of any style of music, knew little about harmony in classical music and virtually nothing about counterpoint.


Even I could see that, while myself having no more than a basic knowledge of theory (and having forgotten some of what I did know). I think MR knew more theory than I do, but in his case a little knowledge was clearly a dangerous thing.


----------



## Roger Knox

The OP has a video featuring Robert Gjerdingen who has researched an Italian practice called _partimento_, which according to a Wikipedia article was used from the late 1600s to early 1800s as an efficient way of composing and improvising.

I haven't learned _partimento_, but note that the Wikipedia article distinguishes _partimento_ from _figured bass_. In _figured bass_ a given bass line provided with figures is used by keyboard players to add supporting chords and voice-leading including non-chord notes when accompanying instrumentalists and/or singers (who have their own given part including the melody). _Partimento_ is more comprehensive, a way of generating from a single line an original composition or improvisation; it seldom used figured bass symbols.

Topics like figured bass vs. Roman numerals, Bach vs. Rameau, how great composers learn to hear music in their heads are subjects that rely on a lot more time and patience than is suitable in a discussion site format. In the course of my music theory master's degree and doctoral course work I learned quite a bit that bears on this post's speculations. But to try to bring it into this thread could as easily confuse as inform. Concerning the video, all I will say here is that not everyone agrees with Gjerdingen's opinions as distinguished from his research, which is original. He says that he "preaches" on how we learn music, and I'm not joining the "congregation." As for the interviewer, I find his interjections less than convincing.


----------



## Woodduck

Bwv 1080 said:


> Begs the question on how composers learn to hear music in their head and how efficiently and quickly they can translate and communicate it. The great composers of the 18th and 19th centuries did not get these skills with undergrad theory 101 Roman numeral analysis. It was thousands of hours of training with figured bass patterns


As a (strictly amateur) composer who began writing music before I knew any kind of theory and who made a living for over thirty years improvising piano accompaniments for ballet, I can report that we learn to hear music in our heads primarily by hearing music in our heads - hearing it constantly, trying out what we hear at the keyboard, and writing it down (or not). Intuitively, I would say that learning theory is useful for checking and evaluating one's creative impulses against tried and true norms, for spotting problems and faults in terms of a particular chosen style, and maybe for getting out of a temporary jam when the next step isn't obvious. But in my case I can't recall a single instance of having to mentally invoke theoretical terminology while engaged in making music, though I do remember that while improvising a few days ago I used parallel fifths and was more annoyed at having noticed it than at having done it. I recall reading that Wagner, who composed one of the most innovative and provocative harmonic progressions in music, the opening of the _Tristan_ prelude, was pleased when a theorist offered him a plausible explanation of what the chord might be called. Apparently he hadn't felt the need to identify it himself. (I believe the theorist's description of the chord had something to do with sexual intercourse - seriously! No wonder Wagner liked it.)

As for figured bass, its only real use is as a system of signs to help performers realize the composer's intentions. You don't compose with it, and with the disappearance of the keyboard continuo it became appropriately obsolete. That's my understanding, at any rate. I welcome correction.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I wonder about the time period referred to in the interview. Functional harmony theory was developed in the 18th century. 
Most composers learned mainly/only figured bass and counterpoint until the early 19th century. I am not exactly sure when the change took place but I think the Paris conservatoire switched to? or put more focus on functional theory in the early 19th century, no idea if this also applied to Germany, Italy etc.

When they are referring to amateurs or people "going to college" they cannot refer to the 18th century with the latter, I believe. 
A 18th century amateur would have learned music from private lessons with a professional, not in college. 
Colleges/universities had very few subjects until far into the 19th century, mostly Classics, History, Maths, Theology, Philosophy, Law, Medicine (even the little natural science they taught was often in the Maths, Philosophy or Medicine departments). 
Music theory had been part of the liberal arts in the middle ages but I doubt that this was what 19th century musical amateurs would have been interested in.


----------



## Roger Knox

Kreisler jr said:


> I wonder about the time period referred to in the interview. Functional harmony theory was developed in the 18th century.
> Most composers learned mainly/only figured bass and counterpoint until the early 19th century. I am not exactly sure when the change took place but I think the Paris conservatoire switched to? or put more focus on functional theory in the early 19th century, no idea if this also applied to Germany, Italy etc.
> 
> When they are referring to amateurs or people "going to college" they cannot refer to the 18th century with the latter, I believe.
> A 18th century amateur would have learned music from private lessons with a professional, not in college.
> Colleges/universities had very few subjects until far into the 19th century, mostly Classics, History, Maths, Theology, Philosophy, Law, Medicine (even the little natural science they taught was often in the Maths, Philosophy or Medicine departments).
> Music theory had been part of the liberal arts in the middle ages but I doubt that this was what 19th century musical amateurs would have been interested in.


I agree on all points. The more I think about it, it seems possible that the video was poorly edited. If not, the time frame in Gjerdingen's remarks is way off, as you say.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Gjerdingen's argues that roman numeral analysis was not taught in 19th century conservatories, he argues that Nadia Boulanger, for example, was trained with figured bass and partimento. He states roman numeral analysis came to the fore in US university music programs aimed at upper middle class students not expected to become professional musicians. Teaching Roman numerals allowed for easy exams and grading and did not require the practice required to master the older methods. He may be overly polemic on this, but in general I respect his views on pedagogy - there is now a thriving small group of improvisers utilizing these methods such as John Mortenson, as well as Gjerdignen's student Alma Deutsher.

The video is an excerpt of a longer podcast:


----------



## Bwv 1080

Woodduck said:


> As a (strictly amateur) composer who began writing music before I knew any kind of theory and who made a living for over thirty years improvising piano accompaniments for ballet, I can report that we learn to hear music in our heads primarily by hearing music in our heads - hearing it constantly, trying out what we hear at the keyboard, and writing it down (or not). Intuitively, I would say that learning theory is useful for checking and evaluating one's creative impulses against tried and true norms, for spotting problems and faults in terms of a particular chosen style, and maybe for getting out of a temporary jam when the next step isn't obvious. But in my case I can't recall a single instance of having to mentally invoke theoretical terminology while engaged in making music, though I do remember that while improvising a few days ago I used parallel fifths and was more annoyed at having noticed it than at having done it. I recall reading that Wagner, who composed one of the most innovative and provocative harmonic progressions in music, the opening of the _Tristan_ prelude, was pleased when a theorist offered him a plausible explanation of what the chord might be called. Apparently he hadn't felt the need to identify it himself. (I believe the theorist's description of the chord had something to do with sexual intercourse - seriously! No wonder Wagner liked it.)
> 
> As for figured bass, its only real use is as a system of signs to help performers realize the composer's intentions. You don't compose with it, and with the disappearance of the keyboard continuo it became appropriately obsolete. That's my understanding, at any rate. I welcome correction.


Again think its helpful to frame theory as pedagogy - then one can understand traditionally taught theory being of little help in active composing improvising or performing. However, if analogous to how a chess master has memorized all the common openings and responses, knowing all the stylistically appropriate counterpoint solutions to certain figures that commonly appear and how to vary them - that would be useful. Another analogy would be the library of licks jazz players possess


----------



## Kreisler jr

It's still very confusing because it does sound as if "roman numerals" would have been taught to amateurs during the 19th century or even earlier at universities. He means probably early 20th century music classes at colleges? 
What about early 20th century harmony books? Didn't Schoenberg write one? Around 1900 we have some musicology at universities, still rare and mostly historical, though (Webern received a doctorate for a thesis about Renaissance music).


----------



## Bwv 1080

Kreisler jr said:


> It's still very confusing because it does sound as if "roman numerals" would have been taught to amateurs during the 19th century or even earlier at universities. He means probably early 20th century music classes at colleges?
> What about early 20th century harmony books? Didn't Schoenberg write one? Around 1900 we have some musicology at universities, still rare and mostly historical, though (Webern received a doctorate for a thesis about Renaissance music).


Schoenberg's book has modern roman numerals, but Tchaikovsky's harmony book from 1871 does not (he uses roman numerals in introducing scale degrees, but everything subsequent is figured bass).


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bwv 1080 said:


> Gjerdingen's argues that roman numeral analysis was not taught in 19th century conservatories, he argues that Nadia Boulanger, for example, was trained with figured bass and partimento.


What do you think about:






"Throughout most of the eighteenth century, only counterpoint was taught to young composers, and any knowledge of harmony was informally picked up by experience or by reading the few theorists who tried to deal innovatively with the subject. Counterpoint was absolutely fundamental. Beginning with harmony was an early nineteenth-century novelty, introduced, I think, by the Paris Conservatoire. Chopin attributes what he thinks of as Berlioz's clumsiness to the newfangled system of music instruction. He himself, Having grown up in a backwater like Warsaw, had studied the old-fashioned way. He insists that counterpoint must precede the study or harmony, or else the harmonic movement will have no inner life-it will be laid on from the outside, as he says, like a veneer.
As we see from Chopin's remarks, the idea of putting part writing (counterpoint before chords (harmony) is not surprisingly modern idea-it is the old traditional way, and Chopin deplored its disappearance. It was the late eighteenth-century development of large harmony areas, of modulation, in fact, that made the teaching of harmony independent of counterpoint. The same stylistic development also gave Rameau's theory of classifying chords by their roots an importance it did not have when it appeared in the early eighteenth century: his theory became of central importance to musical education in early nineteenth-century France. Berlioz seemed to think naturally in Rameau's terms. He chose the harmonies often because of the roots and then employed the inversion which sounded most expressive.
It seems to me that Chopin's claim of a failure on Berlioz's part is partly true-and nevertheless that this failure accounts for much of that is powerful and original in Berlioz's music. Until the nineteenth century, music education began with what is called species counterpoint."
< The Romantic Generation | Charles Rosen | P. 552~553 >

"What makes logic in music, Chopin said, is counterpoint, getting notes to sound against each other. He said the problem with the way they teach nowadays is that they teach the chords before they teach the movement of voices that creates the chords. That's the problem, he said, with Berlioz. He applies the chords as a kind of veneer and fills in the gaps the best way he can. Chopin then said that you can get a sense of pure logic in music with fugue and he cited not Bach-though we know that he worshiped Bach-but Mozart. He said, in every one of Mozart's pieces, you feel the counterpoint."
< The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory | Carl Schachter | P. 57 >


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> I recall reading that Wagner, who composed one of the most innovative and provocative harmonic progressions in music, the opening of the _Tristan_ prelude, was pleased when a theorist offered him a plausible explanation of what the chord might be called. Apparently he hadn't felt the need to identify it himself. (I believe the theorist's description of the chord had something to do with sexual intercourse - seriously! No wonder Wagner liked it.)


In 1877, Wagner recalled Weinlig's teaching style to Edward Dannreuther: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Theodor_Weinlig
"Weinlig had no special method, but he was clear headed and practical. Indeed, you cannot teach composition... all you can do is, to point to some working example, some particular piece, set a task in that direction, and correct the pupil's work. This is what Weinlig did with me. He chose a piece, generally something of Mozart's, drew attention to its construction, relative length and balance of sections, principal modulations, number and quality of themes, and general character of the movement. Then he set the task: you shall write about so many bars, divide into so many sections with modulations to correspond so and so, the themes shall be so many, and of such and such a character. Similarly he would set contrapuntal exercises, canons, fugues - he analysed an example minutely and then gave simple directions how I was to go to work. With infinite kindness he would put his finger on some defective bit and explain the why and wherefore of the alterations he thought desirable. I readily saw what he was aiming at and soon managed to please him ... music should be taught all round on such a simple plan."


----------



## Bwv 1080

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Throughout most of the eighteenth century, only counterpoint was taught to young composers, and any knowledge of harmony was informally picked up by experience or by reading the few theorists who tried to deal innovatively with the subject. Counterpoint was absolutely fundamental. Beginning with harmony was an early nineteenth-century novelty, introduced, I think, by the Paris Conservatoire. Chopin attributes what he thinks of as Berlioz's clumsiness to the newfangled system of music instruction. He himself, Having grown up in a backwater like Warsaw, had studied the old-fashioned way. He insists that counterpoint must precede the study or harmony, or else the harmonic movement will have no inner life-it will be laid on from the outside, as he says, like a veneer.
> As we see from Chopin's remarks, the idea of putting part writing (counterpoint before chords (harmony) is not surprisingly modern idea-it is the old traditional way, and Chopin deplored its disappearance. It was the late eighteenth-century development of large harmony areas, of modulation, in fact, that made the teaching of harmony independent of counterpoint. The same stylistic development also gave Rameau's theory of classifying chords by their roots an importance it did not have when it appeared in the early eighteenth century: his theory became of central importance to musical education in early nineteenth-century France. Berlioz seemed to think naturally in Rameau's terms. He chose the harmonies often because of the roots and then employed the inversion which sounded most expressive.
> It seems to me that Chopin's claim of a failure on Berlioz's part is partly true-and nevertheless that this failure accounts for much of that is powerful and original in Berlioz's music. Until the nineteenth century, music education began with what is called species counterpoint."
> < The Romantic Generation | Charles Rosen | P. 552~553 >
> 
> "What makes logic in music, Chopin said, is counterpoint, getting notes to sound against each other. He said the problem with the way they teach nowadays is that they teach the chords before they teach the movement of voices that creates the chords. That's the problem, he said, with Berlioz. He applies the chords as a kind of veneer and fills in the gaps the best way he can. Chopin then said that you can get a sense of pure logic in music with fugue and he cited not Bach-though we know that he worshiped Bach-but Mozart. He said, in every one of Mozart's pieces, you feel the counterpoint."
> < The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory | Carl Schachter | P. 57 >


Yes - have you seen this:


----------



## Roger Knox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numeral_analysis

Above is a link to an article that contains relevant facts that are required for this thread's discussion, from _Wikipedia_. It has information on the introduction and use of Roman numeral analysis. I'm a "pro-Roman numeraler."

In music theory students usually learn Harmony and Counterpoint before getting to more advanced topics such as History of Music Theory and Music Theory Pedagogy, which are what Gjerdingen is talking about.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think Gjerdingen's point is precisely to cast doubt on this educational sequence and to bring figured bass or his approach back into more elementary music theory, at least for some people, probably depending on different educational goals (analysis, composition, improvisation?).
In my high school maths we had some kind of pre-calculus dwelling mostly on quadratic functions and when I later learned and understand real differential calculus I wondered if this had not been a waste of time because once you know calculus finding the extrema of quadratic functions etc. are a piece of cake and one might have started with calculus straight away (but I am sure that there is also a good pedagogical reason for doing it the way we did it, maybe calculus would be much harder without having done the other stuff before).


----------



## Bwv 1080

Kreisler jr said:


> I think Gjerdingen's point is precisely to cast doubt on this educational sequence and to bring figured bass or his approach back into more elementary music theory, at least for some people, probably depending on different educational goals (analysis, composition, improvisation?).
> In my high school maths we had some kind of pre-calculus dwelling mostly on quadratic functions and when I later learned and understand real differential calculus I wondered if this had not been a waste of time because once you know calculus finding the extrema of quadratic functions etc. are a piece of cake and one might have started with calculus straight away (but I am sure that there is also a good pedagogical reason for doing it the way we did it, maybe calculus would be much harder without having done the other stuff before).


Always had the same thoughts about pre-calc. An analogy might be teaching the definitions of the Riemann and Lebesgue integrals without teaching practical techniques like integration by parts?

I remember learning part writing with the standard Roman Numerals + figured bass and we harmonized melodies, wrote fugues etc, but it was all trial and error. For example, given a descending IV to I bass line, one can either try to do 4-part voiceleading from scratch and likely make a few errors that need to be corrected or simply fall back on either the rule of the octave or the Prinner schema, which can generate good results as quick as it takes to write notes down


----------



## Roger Knox

Kreisler jr said:


> I think Gjerdingen's point is precisely to cast doubt on this educational sequence and to bring figured bass or his approach back into more elementary music theory, at least for some people, probably depending on different educational goals (analysis, composition, improvisation?). ...


You post is well-meaning but I think we are still off track. As background here are 6 significant points:
1. If by "his [Gjerdingen's] approach" you mean a _partimento_-based approach, my post #12 made a clear distinction between the two. Yes, _partimento_-based music instruction was gone for a long time.
2. However, _figured bass_ has not been missing from elementary music theory! All harmony students need to learn it. After first-inversion triads are introduced, students learn to do four-part harmonizations of figured bass lines, in chorale style and/or keyboard style. With each additional chord type (e.g. 7th chords, plus their inversions) figured bass line harmonizations follow.
3. Organists and harpsichordists need more advanced figured bass realization and improvisation skills, e.g. to play Baroque music with finesse. With HIP the skill requirements increase as different national and compositional styles are added.
4. CPE Bach's _Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments_ (1st part, 1753; complete, 1787) is an important source not only for Baroque and later keyboard technique but also for continuo playing and improvisation. It is in the German line of figured bass and counterpoint-oriented music theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Philipp_Emanuel_Bach
5. By contrast, Jean-Philippe Rameau's complex _Treatise on Harmony_ (1714) presents harmony-based music theory in the French line: chord roots, root position and inversions, and succession of chords, which will lead to the idea of functional harmony. As the Wikipedia article Root(chord) points out, the concept of chord inversion was not new with Rameau, but chord succession was. At graduate schooI I participated in a summer seminar where we read French music theory treatises in chronological order from the early 17th up to just before Rameau's, and it was notable how a steady progression of chordal- and harmony-based thinking developed in France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_(chord)
6. As Rameau's ideas were gradually accepted in the 18th century, in France and abroad, the question of how to present them symbolically arose. In the Wikipedia article I referenced in post #23, three prominent German theorists are mentioned as introducing Roman numerals -- Kirnberger (1774), Vogler (1777, 1802, & from 1806 onwards), and Gottfried Weber (from 1817-1821). Now the chord symbol includes the Roman numeral showing the scale degree of the chord root, and the Arabic numeral(s) showing the chord inversion. Bear in mind that the Roman numeral also indicates the chord function as functional harmony (e.g. later in the 19th century with Hugo Riemann) develops. The practice was taken up in Germany earlier than in Austria, where the conservative Simon Sechter continued with figured bass and contrapuntally-based pedagogy. Incidentally, an outgrowth of the Austrian pedagogy is Schenkerian analysis, an ambitious and complicated approach developed in Vienna by Heinrich Schenker and his followers in the early 20th century that continues to emphasize linear factors. 
_(pro-Roman numeral analysis to be continued...)_


----------



## Roger Knox

Roger Knox said:


> _(pro-Roman numeral analysis to be continued...)_


Post #26 presented background on how the Roman numeral system of representing chords within a key came about. Today I think this system is still important for learning and analysis of music described as being of the Common Practice Tonality era. I agree with Kreisler's point in post #24 that what system we use depends on the musical purpose involved. Systems that differ are neither necessarily nor completely in conflict. And Woodduck's experience of playing music by ear (post #13) brings up the crucial role of hearing music inwardly.

Robert Gjerdingen's historical research is much respected. Introduction of _partimento_-based music education is a significant topic currently. I don't know _partimento_ and haven't studied or taught music theory for quite a while. Some developments in music education and theory can become confrontational, with echoes that go beyond music and beyond the arts. This will be my last post on the Roman numeral thread.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Roger Knox said:


> You post is well-meaning but I think we are still off track. As background here are 6 significant points:
> 1. If by "his [Gjerdingen's] approach" you mean a _partimento_-based approach, my post #12 made a clear distinction between the two. Yes, _partimento_-based music instruction was gone for a long time.
> 2. However, _figured bass_ has not been missing from elementary music theory! All harmony students need to learn it. After first-inversion triads are introduced, students learn to do four-part harmonizations of figured bass lines, in chorale style and/or keyboard style. With each additional chord type (e.g. 7th chords, plus their inversions) figured bass line harmonizations follow.
> 3. Organists and harpsichordists need more advanced figured bass realization and improvisation skills, e.g. to play Baroque music with finesse. With HIP the skill requirements increase as different national and compositional styles are added.
> 4. CPE Bach's _Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments_ (1st part, 1753; complete, 1787) is an important source not only for Baroque and later keyboard technique but also for continuo playing and improvisation. It is in the German line of figured bass and counterpoint-oriented music theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Philipp_Emanuel_Bach
> 5. By contrast, Jean-Philippe Rameau's complex _Treatise on Harmony_ (1714) presents harmony-based music theory in the French line: chord roots, root position and inversions, and succession of chords, which will lead to the idea of functional harmony. As the Wikipedia article Root(chord) points out, the concept of chord inversion was not new with Rameau, but chord succession was. At graduate schooI I participated in a summer seminar where we read French music theory treatises in chronological order from the early 17th up to just before Rameau's, and it was notable how a steady progression of chordal- and harmony-based thinking developed in France.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_(chord)
> 6. As Rameau's ideas were gradually accepted in the 18th century, in France and abroad, the question of how to present them symbolically arose. In the Wikipedia article I referenced in post #23, three prominent German theorists are mentioned as introducing Roman numerals -- Kirnberger (1774), Vogler (1777, 1802, & from 1806 onwards), and Gottfried Weber (from 1817-1821). Now the chord symbol includes the Roman numeral showing the scale degree of the chord root, and the Arabic numeral(s) showing the chord inversion. Bear in mind that the Roman numeral also indicates the chord function as functional harmony (e.g. later in the 19th century with Hugo Riemann) develops. The practice was taken up in Germany earlier than in Austria, where the conservative Simon Sechter continued with figured bass and contrapuntally-based pedagogy. Incidentally, an outgrowth of the Austrian pedagogy is Schenkerian analysis, an ambitious and complicated approach developed in Vienna by Heinrich Schenker and his followers in the early 20th century that continues to emphasize linear factors.
> _(pro-Roman numeral analysis to be continued...)_


Good summary, the only thing I would add is that Rameau was not really accepted in the French conservatories, which up through Nadia Boulanger were not teaching roman numerals / fundamental bass. The Germans adopted the system and it began to be widely used toward the end of the 19th century


----------



## Kreisler jr

I have not really opinion here as anything beyond elementary "roman numerals analysis" is way over my head (or I just don't know anything about it). I just wanted to try to understand Gjerdingen's point and get the historical development more clearly (where he is misleading/obscure in that interview).


----------



## Roger Knox

Kreisler jr said:


> I have not really opinion here as anything beyond elementary "roman numerals analysis" is way over my head (or I just don't know anything about it). I just wanted to try to understand Gjerdingen's point and get the historical development more clearly (where he is misleading/obscure in that interview).


Your posts have a lot of insight. I think they've helped me to keep in mind the purposes of music theory and music education.


----------



## Roger Knox

Bwv 1080 said:


> Good summary, the only thing I would add is that Rameau was not really accepted in the French conservatories, which up through Nadia Boulanger were not teaching roman numerals / fundamental bass. The Germans adopted the system and it began to be widely used toward the end of the 19th century


You are right on this and I stand corrected -- thank you. It is a happy coincidence that mention of Nadia Boulanger tweaked something, forcing this additional post. My master's thesis at Indiana University over 40 years ago was "Counterpoint in Gabriel Fauré's String Quartet, Op. 124," an in-depth study of linear and contrapuntal factors in Fauré's last work (1924). It was based on Salzer & Schachter's _Counterpoint in Composition_ and Salzer's _Structural Hearing_. (Felix Salzer extended Schenkerian analysis to a wider variety of tonal music than orthodox Schenkerians would accept.) Also, the Niedermayer School in Paris where Fauré studied the organ and learned modal harmonization and improvisation was included as a source. The composition is full of structures from species counterpoint and traditional schemata altered using modal and chromatic harmony, pervasive seventh chords, and mild non-traditional dissonance. Looking for all these things I ignored Rameau-based harmony.

Fauré was Nadia Boulanger's teacher. She emphasized the significance of this piece to her students including her students Aaron Copland and Elliot Carter, who in turn sang their praises of Fauré and his String Quartet in the _Musical Quarterly_. As did Madame Boulanger in her course that my first composition teacher attended in Fontainebleu (ok, enough names ... ).


----------



## Bwv 1080

Roger Knox said:


> You are right on this and I stand corrected -- thank you. It is a happy coincidence that mention of Nadia Boulanger tweaked something, forcing this additional post. My master's thesis at Indiana University over 40 years ago was "Counterpoint in Gabriel Fauré's String Quartet, Op. 124," an in-depth study of linear and contrapuntal factors in Fauré's last work (1924). It was based on Salzer & Schachter's _Counterpoint in Composition_ and Salzer's _Structural Hearing_. (Felix Salzer extended Schenkerian analysis to a wider variety of tonal music than orthodox Schenkerians would accept.) Also, the Niedermayer School in Paris where Fauré studied the organ and learned modal harmonization and improvisation was included as a source. The composition is full of structures from species counterpoint and traditional schemata altered using modal and chromatic harmony, pervasive seventh chords, and mild non-traditional dissonance. Looking for all these things I ignored Rameau-based harmony.
> 
> Fauré was Nadia Boulanger's teacher. She emphasized the significance of this piece to her students including her students Aaron Copland and Elliot Carter, who in turn sang their praises of Fauré and his String Quartet in the _Musical Quarterly_. As did Madame Boulanger in her course that my first composition teacher attended in Fontainebleu (ok, enough names ... ).


Cool - now I have to check out that piece


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Abbé Georg Joseph Vogler occasionally employed Roman numerals in his Grunde der Kuhrpfälzischen Tonschule in 1778. He mentioned them also in his Handbuch zur Harmonielehre of 1802 and employed Roman numeral analysis in several publications from 1806 onwards."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numeral_analysis#History
Btw, 
"Hard, in the eyes of posterity, to survive what the 21-year-old Mozart, who met him during his stay in Mannheim in 1777, wrote about Georg Joseph Vogler, better known as "Abbé Vogler", calling him (in letter to Leopold) "barren and frivolous-a man who imagines he can do a great deal, and does very little", "a fool, who fancies that no one can be better or more perfect than himself", "more fit to teach arithmetic than composition". ........"
http://discophage.com/georg-joseph-abbe-vogler-1749-1814/


----------



## Roger Knox

hammeredklavier said:


> "Abbé Georg Joseph Vogler occasionally employed Roman numerals in his Grunde der Kuhrpfälzischen Tonschule in 1778. He mentioned them also in his Handbuch zur Harmonielehre of 1802 and employed Roman numeral analysis in several publications from 1806 onwards."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numeral_analysis#History
> Btw,
> "Hard, in the eyes of posterity, to survive what the 21-year-old Mozart, who met him during his stay in Mannheim in 1777, wrote about Georg Joseph Vogler, better known as "Abbé Vogler", calling him (in letter to Leopold) "barren and frivolous-a man who imagines he can do a great deal, and does very little", "a fool, who fancies that no one can be better or more perfect than himself", "more fit to teach arithmetic than composition". ........"
> http://discophage.com/georg-joseph-abbe-vogler-1749-1814/


I'm not sure what you're point is, but it is probably something ...

Rick Beato is no amateur; he's a consummate pro with ears that can hear the tiniest detail. I would ask that you check out his Youtube teaching video on Gordon Lightfoot's "If You Could Read My Mind." You can see his facility in using Roman numeral chord symbols and pop/jazz letter chord symbols interchangeably. Neither system seems to be an encumbrance and he's doing the guitarists and songwriters watching the video a favor by showing the symbols onscreen.

Now, this video is for advanced musicians, not amateurs ... And us music theory teachers of sometimes less advanced students likewise still use Roman numeral symbols to explain what's going on, 250 years or so after Vogler _et al_ ...

I still don't see what the problem with Roman numerals is.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Roger Knox said:


> Another good clip from RG
> I still don't see what the problem with Roman numerals is.







RNs are just a tool that is sometimes useful, sometimes not


----------



## hammeredklavier

*Wagner Tristan und Isolde Prelude Harmonic Analysis*
by jonas wolf music

"This is a basso continuo style harmonic analysis of Richard Wagner's prelude to 'Tristan und Isolde', one of his most developed pieces on a harmony level especially for the extravagant use of chromaticism which is staged right from the opening bars with his famous 'Tristan chord'.
The analysis method I chose is a combination of scale degrees and general bass (thorough bass) figures: Harmony is the result of the intervals over the bass note (no matter if the bass and the root note are identical). And each bass note is put into relation with the (actual or assumed) key of the phrase, marked in roman numerals.
Wherever possible, only the bass note and the current melody part are represented (although in some cases, two overlapping melody parts are accepted / cannot be avoided). With this sheet, an experienced basso continuo player might be able to reproduce all harmonic phenomena happening in the original score while emphasizing the most prominent melodic shapes. 
The results presented in this analysis are neither universal nor do they claim to be the only correct solution. One can argue that it will leave out many important voice leading aspects and that some assignments are debatable and rather subjective. On the other hand, since it's subjective, I find it very useful to represent what actually might be happening in your brain when listening to it (whether you are aware of it or not). And since general bass and scale degree thinking was very common in Wagner's time, this method might even claim to represent what Wagner actually could have been consciously or unconsciously thinking when he composed 'Tristan und Isolde'." -jonas wolf music


----------



## Bwv 1080

That is really cool, thanks


----------



## EdwardBast

Roger Knox said:


> I still don't see what the problem with Roman numerals is.


It's a tool that can be used intelligently or dimly. As I noted in another thread, Roman numeral analysis incorporates all the Arabic numeral indicators from figured bass (for suspensions, inversions, etc.). It even contains the bass note information, only converted from note to function.

Some seem concerned that Roman numerals don't reflect the thought processes of 18thc and 19thc composers in the act of composition. True, but not necessarily relevant for the purposes of analysis. What is the right tool depends on what one is hoping to understand


----------



## composingmusic

Bwv 1080 said:


> RNs are just a tool that is sometimes useful, sometimes not


This I agree with. They're very useful for certain things, but it's also possible to use them in a simplistic or reductive way. The same can be said of many other tools too - Schenkerian Analysis, Scale Networks (in a neo-Riemannian context), and Pitch Class Set Theory in particular come to mind. All three of those are very useful for really specific things, but not so much outside of those specific contexts. It could be possible to use certain aspects of these tools for other things, but that would have to be done very carefully, and not in a way that's reductive.


----------



## Opisthokont

On the precalculus/analysis discussion - I honestly think precalculus is a useless subject. Mathematics education in grade schools and universities often has very little to do with what mathematicians actually do and are interested in. I am always of the opinion that calculation is unnecessary and our focus on it is massive detriment to mathematics. I do think it's fine to learn to the lesbegue integral without learning how to calculate integration by parts - but my opinions don't seem to be in the majority. 

And well, there may be a reason I got such poor student reviews. While I think such things are boring, they're also quite easy to do - any person can be trained to robotically follow an algorithm, but its quite hard to get somebody to understand what the algorithm is doing and why it works. And if you try to set expectations on students that you don't care about their rote memorization and instead seek out to focus their attention on understanding - well there are few more surefire ways to get student complaints.

I don't know enough about roman numeral analysis to really comment on that specifically - but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some analogy to be made with music pedagogy. Actually understanding how a piece of music works seems a lot harder than memorizing chords? I also assume though that applying any sort of musical analysis tool without understanding produces poor results.


----------



## Kreisler jr

This it totally OT but calculation is quite important for anyone using college level maths who is not a (pure) mathematician, i.e. many scientistst, economists, engineers who together outnumber mathematicians by far. This fact should not completely determine syllabi and the way stuff is taught in HS and college but neither should it be neglected


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> As a (strictly amateur) composer who began writing music before I knew any kind of theory and who made a living for over thirty years improvising piano accompaniments for ballet, I can report that we learn to hear music in our heads primarily by hearing music in our heads - hearing it constantly, trying out what we hear at the keyboard, and writing it down (or not). Intuitively, I would say that learning theory is useful for checking and evaluating one's creative impulses against tried and true norms, for spotting problems and faults in terms of a particular chosen style, and maybe for getting out of a temporary jam when the next step isn't obvious. But in my case I can't recall a single instance of having to mentally invoke theoretical terminology while engaged in making music, though I do remember that while improvising a few days ago I used parallel fifths and was more annoyed at having noticed it than at having done it. I recall reading that Wagner, who composed one of the most innovative and provocative harmonic progressions in music, the opening of the _Tristan_ prelude, was pleased when a theorist offered him a plausible explanation of what the chord might be called. Apparently he hadn't felt the need to identify it himself. (I believe the theorist's description of the chord had something to do with sexual intercourse - seriously! No wonder Wagner liked it.)
> 
> As for figured bass, its only real use is as a system of signs to help performers realize the composer's intentions. You don't compose with it, and with the disappearance of the keyboard continuo it became appropriately obsolete. That's my understanding, at any rate. I welcome correction.


I'm wondering if your fingers move round without thinking about what you're doing? I mean, you must know where you are when you pause or look down? I don't understand this.


----------



## Gargamel

Need to know these roman numerals to compose good tunes? I don't think Irving Berlin did. He couldn't even read music, he couldn't even play piano except on the black keys.


----------



## Luchesi

Gargamel said:


> Need to know these roman numerals to compose good tunes? I don't think Irving Berlin did. He couldn't even read music, he couldn't even play piano except on the black keys.


I think he used a method similar to the Roman numerals.


----------



## composingmusic

It's definitely possible to write good music without knowing theory, but theory helps one be aware of what they're doing. Roman numerals are helpful in this, as are other theoretical tools (depending on what one is doing, and used with discretion of course).


----------



## Bwv 1080

Gargamel said:


> Need to know these roman numerals to compose good tunes? I don't think Irving Berlin did.


Bach, Mozart and Beethoven did not know Roman numerals


----------



## Luchesi

Bwv 1080 said:


> Bach, Mozart and Beethoven did not know Roman numerals


True. Tell us what they did.


----------



## Luchesi

composingmusic;2195854[B said:


> ]It's definitely possible to write good music without knowing theory,[/B] but theory helps one be aware of what they're doing. Roman numerals are helpful in this, as are other theoretical tools (depending on what one is doing, and used with discretion of course).


Tell us how you would do it.

And can you improvise without using the Roman numerals?


----------



## Bwv 1080

Luchesi said:


> True. Tell us what they did.


Figured bass, schema and part writing rules


----------



## Red Terror

Not a fan of the Romans; they liked children (a little too much) and broke wind in public without _ever_ apologizing.


----------



## Luchesi

Bwv 1080 said:


> Figured bass, schema and part writing rules


Thanks, that is what I thought. That's what it looks like to me in the scores, but my question in the past (I've tried) has been what do you start with? Bass? Or bass with the parts above it forming a recognized group of notes we see in music over and over?

'Seems very difficult. My friend composes choir pieces like that (3 or 4 voices moving along). I'll stick with my various favorite progressions as starting points and guidance. ...because they're inspiring in among themselves, so to speak, with the same endless combinations but easier to put into words to share with others.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Luchesi said:


> Thanks, that is what I thought. That's what it looks like to me in the scores, but my question in the past (I've tried) has been what do you start with? Bass? Or bass with the parts above it forming a recognized group of notes we see in music over and over?
> 
> 'Seems very difficult. My friend composes choir pieces like that (3 or 4 voices moving along). I'll stick with my various favorite progressions as starting points and guidance. ...because they're inspiring in among themselves, so to speak, with the same endless combinations but easier to put into words to share with others.


The rule of the octave is the starting point then learning some basic schemas like the Romenesca and Prinner, been kind of a Renaissance in rediscovering 18th century pedagogy


----------



## Luchesi

Bwv 1080 said:


> The rule of the octave is the starting point then learning some basic schemas like the Romenesca and Prinner, been kind of a Renaissance in rediscovering 18th century pedagogy


Thanks. This is the same problem across the centuries, so why not use the codification reduced down to the familiar numerals and then add the minor (and major) thirds for the ninths, elevenths and thirteenths? It seems to me that progress has been made, so I use it. I know it's been 'played with' by jazz explorers (flattenings), but what they have done to gain popular appeal is obvious. We don't have to sound like that.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Luchesi said:


> Thanks. This is the same problem across the centuries, so why not use the codification reduced down to the familiar numerals and then add the minor (and major) thirds for the ninths, elevenths and thirteenths? It seems to me that progress has been made, so I use it. I know it's been 'played with' by jazz explorers (flattenings), but what they have done to gain popular appeal is obvious. We don't have to sound like that.


Its too reductionist to be helpful in creating music - like learning spelling but not grammar. Not really progress, players in the old methods were great improvisers, something modern classical players brought up on this 'progress' are generally worthless at. The old methods are building blocks of a language that results in being able to do things like improvise fugues


----------



## Merl

I'm giving this thread X/X.


----------



## EdwardBast

Bwv 1080 said:


> *Its too reductionist to be helpful in creating music -* like learning spelling but not grammar. Not really progress, players in the old methods were great improvisers, something modern classical players brought up on this 'progress' are generally worthless at. The old methods are building blocks of a language that results in being able to do things like improvise fugues


For whom? Anyone not picking up tonal grammar from using Roman numeral analysis has to be either inattentive or a dolt.


----------



## Bwv 1080

EdwardBast said:


> For whom? Anyone not picking up tonal grammar from using Roman numeral analysis has to be either inattentive or a dolt.


would just refer you back to the video in the OP


----------



## Doublestring

The most important is to recognize the three basic functions: tonic, dominant and subdominant, or T, D and S. The Roman numerals follow out of that:

T = I or VI or III
D = V or VII
S = IV or II

Then there are the chords with chromatic changes. They are usually secondary dominants, which can be explained as mini-modulations. Other chromatic chords can be explained as modal elements.

Figured bass has a practical meaning, meant to accompany Baroque music and as a basis for improvisation. Functional analysis has a theoretical meaning. It helps to understand how harmony works. So the two aren't opposites, they just serve a different purpose: one more practical; the other more theoretical.


----------



## Luchesi

Doublestring said:


> The most important is to recognize the three basic functions: tonic, dominant and subdominant, or T, D and S. The Roman numerals follow out of that:
> 
> T = I or VI or III
> D = V or VII
> S = IV or II
> 
> Then there are the chords with chromatic changes. They are usually secondary dominants, which can be explained as mini-modulations. Other chromatic chords can be explained as modal elements.
> 
> Figured bass has a practical meaning, meant to accompany Baroque music and as a basis for improvisation. Functional analysis has a theoretical meaning. It helps to understand how harmony works. So the two aren't opposites, they just serve a different purpose: one more practical; the other more theoretical.


Yes, thanks. As a player and an improviser (even in my amateurish jazz stylings) I need to know where I am at every moment, for confidence. So I use the short-hands and the many elaborated symbols I'm accustomed to. For me, it's a matter of the whole being greater than all the tiny parts (within the amount of time I want to spend on pure sounds).


----------



## Bwv 1080

Reading a new book by Derek Remes analyzing the WTC preludes using figured bass (thoroughbass) and he explains at the beginning why he avoids functional analysis and roman numerals:

https://derekremes.com/publications/



> I generally avoid or minimize three other types of abstraction. First, inversional equivalence-that
> staple of modern harmonic theories-is largely unnecessary here. One reason is that theories involving the
> progression of chordal roots played almost no role in Bach's circle. Instead, Bach seems to have focused on the
> sounding bassline, specifically the scale degree of the bass, as evidenced, among other things, by Kayser's
> analyses mentioned above. Exceptions, however, are Heinichen and C. P. E. Bach's concepts of Exchange of 31
> Resolution and Exchange of Harmony (see Question 8), which involve inversional equivalence, yet without a
> generative chordal root, as in modern harmonic theories. Thus, any chord may be considered the starting
> position from which others are measured, yet the intervals between chordal roots remain irrelevant.
> 
> As mentioned already, a second type of abstraction I wish to avoid, or at least attenuate, is prolongational
> equivalence. A prolongation occurs when a harmonic progression (or an entire piece) can be understood to
> perpetuate a single chord. However, as said before, this concept can easily lead to a conflation of chord and key.
> Thus, while large-scale prolongation is certainly of some analytical interest, it of little use for practical
> musicians. This excludes an understanding of pedal points or how neighbor, passing, and suspended tones can
> ornament an underlying harmony at the small scale, however, which I consider essential in the present context.
> 
> The third and final kind of abstraction that I generally disregard is functional equivalence. *The theory of
> harmonic functions posits that all chords can be assigned a tonic, dominant, or subdominant function. But just
> as a color photograph is generally impoverished by reducing it to the three primary colors of red, yellow, and
> blue, so too does functional harmonic analysis often impoverish our understanding of a piece of music. Like
> prolongation, functional analysis oversimplifies by positing too many similarities between dissimilar things.
> That is, functional equivalence is the byproduct of an excess of abstraction that has its analytical applications,
> but which is of less interest to historically oriented practitioners*.


----------



## Luchesi

Bwv 1080 said:


> Reading a new book by Derek Remes analyzing the WTC preludes using figured bass (thoroughbass) and he explains at the beginning why he avoids functional analysis and roman numerals:
> 
> https://derekremes.com/publications/


When I'm looking at a score I see the chords, but I also see everything else. I mean you have to see it all to play it. I guess composing with chords would be like the 50s doo-*** C, Am, Dm, G7 songs. Very limiting.


----------



## Gargamel

Doublestring said:


> The most important is to recognize the three basic functions: tonic, dominant and subdominant, or T, D and S. The Roman numerals follow out of that:
> 
> T = I or VI or III
> D = V or VII
> S = IV or II
> 
> Then there are the chords with chromatic changes. They are usually secondary dominants, which can be explained as mini-modulations. Other chromatic chords can be explained as modal elements.
> 
> Figured bass has a practical meaning, meant to accompany Baroque music and as a basis for improvisation. Functional analysis has a theoretical meaning. It helps to understand how harmony works. So the two aren't opposites, they just serve a different purpose: one more practical; the other more theoretical.


I think the abstraction you're looking for is progressions toward these functions, that is, how the bassline acts in these progressions.
When vi (root position) goes to I (root position), the bass can rise stepwise and you'll see vi --> V6 --> I.



Bwv 1080 said:


> Reading a new book by Derek Remes analyzing the WTC preludes using figured bass (thoroughbass) and he explains at the beginning why he avoids functional analysis and roman numerals:
> 
> I generally avoid or minimize three...ill make analyzing it needlessly complicated.


----------

