# Is functional Harmony considered homophonic?



## youngcapone

Hello everyone! Sorry if this is an obvious question, but I just want to clear this up. As far as I understand about voice leading, there are essentially two main types. Homophony and polyphony. Functional harmony seems to fit homophony 100 percent since it’s all based on the chord progressions and tones within the chords. Am I understanding this correctly? Can you use functional harmony in a polyphonic type of way?


----------



## millionrainbows

youngcapone said:


> Hello everyone! Sorry if this is an obvious question, but I just want to clear this up. As far as I understand about voice leading, there are essentially two main types. Homophony and polyphony. Functional harmony seems to fit homophony 100 percent since it's all based on the chord progressions and tones within the chords. Am I understanding this correctly? Can you use functional harmony in a polyphonic type of way?


Watch out, this is a trick question.

"Function" did not exist in old polyphony such as Bach. He used figured-bass. Rameau conceived of chords as harmonic entities, and Bach was opposed to this.



> Can you use functional harmony in a polyphonic type of way?



Are you CP or modern? No, in CP polyphony "major seventh" chords do not exist; the seventh is a passing tone. You need to make up your mind.


----------



## Granate

I read homophobic I'm so dumb :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

me too tee hee :lol: Eddie said so


----------



## EdwardBast

youngcapone said:


> Hello everyone! Sorry if this is an obvious question, but I just want to clear this up. As far as I understand about voice leading, there are essentially two main types. Homophony and polyphony. Functional harmony seems to fit homophony 100 percent since it's all based on the chord progressions and tones within the chords. Am I understanding this correctly? Can you use functional harmony in a polyphonic type of way?


No, there are not two types of voice leading. In common practice music the principles of voice-leading are the same whether one is creating a homophonic or a polyphonic texture. Functional harmonic progressions can underpin polyphonic as well as homphonic textures.


----------



## Jerry Gerber

youngcapone said:


> Hello everyone! Sorry if this is an obvious question, but I just want to clear this up. As far as I understand about voice leading, there are essentially two main types. Homophony and polyphony. Functional harmony seems to fit homophony 100 percent since it's all based on the chord progressions and tones within the chords. Am I understanding this correctly? Can you use functional harmony in a polyphonic type of way?


Yes, of course. The_ texture _of a musical passage may in fact be polyphonic, but the polyphony itself may be governed by harmonic progression. Analyze a Bach invention or fugue and you'll see what I mean. In other words, you might have 4-part counterpoint, each line with independent motion, independent rhythm and independent direction. But those 4 lines may be governed by a clear (or not-so-clear) harmonic progression.

Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com


----------



## mikeh375

Jerry Gerber said:


> Yes, of course. The_ texture _of a musical passage may in fact be polyphonic, but the polyphony itself may be governed by harmonic progression. Analyze a Bach invention or fugue and you'll see what I mean. In other words, you might have 4-part counterpoint, each line with independent motion, independent rhythm and independent direction. But those 4 lines may be governed by a clear (or not-so-clear) harmonic progression.
> 
> Jerry
> www.jerrygerber.com


Well....hello Mr G....


----------



## Jerry Gerber

mikeh375 said:


> Well....hello Mr G....


Hi Mike!

I decided to try this forum. Glad to see you're here..

I hope all is well with you...

J


----------



## millionrainbows

Jerry Gerber said:


> Yes, of course. The_ texture _of a musical passage may in fact be polyphonic, but the polyphony itself may be governed by harmonic progression. Analyze a Bach invention or fugue and you'll see what I mean.


What's "texture" mean? It sounds like a justification for polyphony being "harmonic."



> In other words, you might have 4-part counterpoint, each line with independent motion, independent rhythm and independent direction. But those 4 lines may be governed by a clear (or not-so-clear) harmonic progression.


But isn't this an after-the fact assumption, since independent "chord function" did not exist in Bach's time? It seems to me there are too many variables. For instance, what might appear to be a "major seventh" chord (C-E-G-B) harmonically must relinquish its chordal status to polyphonic resolution of B to C, where B is a passing tone, not a harmonic or chordal element. 
So the answer is "no, you can't really _freely _use functional harmony in a polyphonic type of way" unless you change the rules of what we know as "polyphony."

Hello Mr. Gerber, I just read your interview. It's nice to have someone around like yourself.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> What's "texture" mean? It sounds like a justification for polyphony being "harmonic."
> 
> But isn't this an after-the fact assumption, since independent "chord function" did not exist in Bach's time? It seems to me there are too many variables. For instance, what might appear to be a "major seventh" chord (C-E-G-B) harmonically must relinquish its chordal status to polyphonic resolution of B to C, where B is a passing tone, not a harmonic or chordal element.
> So the answer is *"no, you can't really freely  use functional harmony in a polyphonic type of way" unless you change the rules of what we know as "polyphony."*
> 
> Hello Mr. Gerber, I just read your interview. It's nice to have someone around like yourself.[/COLOR]


Texture is a basic term in music and music theory. Look it up.

The rest of your post is confused and, where its meaning is decipherable, doesn't support your conclusion (bold).


----------



## Jerry Gerber

millionrainbows said:


> What's "texture" mean? It sounds like a justification for polyphony being "harmonic."
> 
> But isn't this an after-the fact assumption, since independent "chord function" did not exist in Bach's time? It seems to me there are too many variables. For instance, what might appear to be a "major seventh" chord (C-E-G-B) harmonically must relinquish its chordal status to polyphonic resolution of B to C, where B is a passing tone, not a harmonic or chordal element.
> So the answer is "no, you can't really _freely _use functional harmony in a polyphonic type of way" unless you change the rules of what we know as "polyphony."
> 
> Hello Mr. Gerber, I just read your interview. It's nice to have someone around like yourself.


Texture refers to the the moment-by-moment elements of a composition. if you have a copy of Piston's book on Orchestration or Harmony, he writes about the different orchestral textures. When not considering an orchestra, music still has texture; one moment it may be homophonic or heterophonic, another moment it may be polyphonic or chordal. Of course if a composer chooses to work in one texture, i.e. a 4-part fugue or a 4-part choral, the texture remains fairly constant. But in many pieces, particularly larger works, the texture is in flux. Chord Function, it's true, didn't technically exist in Bach's time, it wasn't until the French composer Rameau codified chord structures in his Treatise on Harmony in 1722 (Bach was still alive, but I don't know whether he was aware of this treatise) that musicians began to think, at least more consciously, about chords and chord progressions. When I was a student, and as a teacher, we'd spend much time analyzing Bach inventions for their harmonic movement. Either I don't understand what you are trying to say, or you don't understand what I am trying to say, or both.


----------



## Jerry Gerber

My last post didn't complete. It automatically got sent to a moderator before I had even finished it. Weird. 
Counterpoint may be written with little or no concern for functional harmony, listen to a Bartok string quartet or a work by Schoenberg, or the Piano Concerto by Samuel Barber. Counterpoint can also be very much governed by harmonic progression, if you analyze work by Bach you should see that for yourself. If not, well, nothing I can say or explain will be of much help to you.

Listen to, or play, some Bach Chorals. The line between polyphony and homophony is not black and white, it is more diffuse than that. One can see the more or less simple polyphony in a choral (simple compared to a fugue!) without the strettos, imitation and other contrapuntal techniques like sequential fragmentation, yet still recognize that each line has at least _some _rhythmic and contour variation (high points occur at different times).

If we go back earlier, to a motet by Palestrina, the harmonies are pretty clear to my ear but they were not thinking ii6/3, V7 I or anything like that.

Theory is derived from practice. Good composers and songwriters don't sit around making up theories and then writing to that theory. Music must have heart, soul, intention, it must express itself in a way that gives the listener the feeling that there's meaning here, there's purpose. Composers understand that studying all the theory in the world is useful, but when one sits down to compose, its really only about listening and choosing what sound you want to achieve. If composers followed rules music would never change, we'd all be writing the same way as composers did centuries ago. That's obviously absurd, music is constantly changing, reacting to all kind of influences including instrument technology, social, economic and political currents, the evolving taste of the composers themselves, other music, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Texture is a basic term in music and music theory. Look it up.
> 
> The rest of your post is confused and, where its meaning is decipherable, doesn't support your conclusion (bold).


I wasn't questioning the term "texture," just the use of it in describing polyphony as opposed to "polyphony itself." It doesn't really clarify anything.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jerry Gerber said:


> Theory is derived from practice. Good composers and songwriters don't sit around making up theories and then writing to that theory. Music must have heart, soul, intention, it must express itself in a way that gives the listener the feeling that there's meaning here, there's purpose. Composers understand that studying all the theory in the world is useful, but when one sits down to compose, its really only about listening and choosing what sound you want to achieve. If composers followed rules music would never change, we'd all be writing the same way as composers did centuries ago. That's obviously absurd, music is constantly changing, reacting to all kind of influences including instrument technology, social, economic and political currents, the evolving taste of the composers themselves, other music, etc.


That's understandable, yet Bach seemed to think that theory was important, as he opposed Rameau's theories of chord inversion in favor of his old figured bass method. Perhaps Bach should have changed with the times, as his figured bass method proved unwieldy as harmony progressed.


----------



## isorhythm

Jerry Gerber said:


> Theory is derived from practice.


This is the heart of it, millionrainbows, and it seems to be your stumbling block in every one of these threads. When Rameau wrote his treatise he was proposing a theory about how already existing music worked.

As always, my suggestion is to spend less time playing games with words and more looking at actual music if you want to understand what's going on. If you look at the music you will find functional harmony in Bach (and earlier).


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> This is the heart of it, millionrainbows, and it seems to be your stumbling block in every one of these threads. When Rameau wrote his treatise he was proposing a theory about how already existing music worked.


I disagree in this case, since Bach and Rameau were both important theorists. Bach apparently had a vested interest in keeping the figured bass system, and in rejecting Rameau's more elegant system. Perhaps Bach foresaw the 'danger' that harmonic theory could pose to his polyphony/figured-bass method.



> As always, my suggestion is to spend less time playing games with words and more looking at actual music if you want to understand what's going on. If you look at the music you will find functional harmony in Bach (and earlier).


The fact is, it is _only in retrospect_ that we can look at Bach in terms of harmonic/Roman numeral analysis. Whether or not he thought in terms of harmonic progression I do not know; but it should be clear that if he did, it was subsidiary to his polyphonic procedures of voice leading and resolution. Remember, no major seventh chords allowed.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree in this case, since Bach and Rameau were both important theorists. Bach apparently had a vested interest in keeping the figured bass system, and in rejecting Rameau's more elegant system. Perhaps Bach foresaw the 'danger' that harmonic theory could pose to his polyphony/figured-bass method.


Figured bass is not a theoretical system, it's a system of notation. Bach was not a theorist, except in the whimsical sense that all composers might be called "applied theorists." Elegance has nothing to do with it. 



millionrainbows said:


> The fact is, it is _only in retrospect_ that we can look at Bach in terms of harmonic/Roman numeral analysis. Whether or not he thought in terms of harmonic progression I do not know; but it should be clear that if he did, it was subsidiary to his polyphonic procedures of voice leading and resolution. Remember, no major seventh chords allowed.


Of course his thinking included harmonic progressions. Please educate yourself before posting voluminously on issues you don't understand. It's tiresome cleaning up after you.


----------



## Bwv 1080

No, functional harmony is open and accepting of all gender and sexual identities


----------



## Jerry Gerber

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree in this case, since Bach and Rameau were both important theorists. Bach apparently had a vested interest in keeping the figured bass system, and in rejecting Rameau's more elegant system. Perhaps Bach foresaw the 'danger' that harmonic theory could pose to his polyphony/figured-bass method.
> 
> The fact is, it is _only in retrospect_ that we can look at Bach in terms of harmonic/Roman numeral analysis. Whether or not he thought in terms of harmonic progression I do not know; but it should be clear that if he did, it was subsidiary to his polyphonic procedures of voice leading and resolution. Remember, no major seventh chords allowed.


If Bach was a theorist (he wasn't) can you direct us to any writings on music that can back up that statement?

As Edward pointed out, figured bass is not a theory, it is a form of musical shorthand to instruct the keyboard player how to harmonize a bass line. Perhaps what you mean is that figured bass is still used in the instruction of classical harmony, which was not its original purpose. Musicians who still use it in performance practice are interpreting works from the Baroque period. For all practical intents and purposes figured bass has been replaced with chord symbols and chord charts that guitarists and keyboard players use in many contemporary styles of music, excluding classical.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Figured bass is not a theoretical system, it's a system of notation. Bach was not a theorist, except in the whimsical sense that all composers might be called "applied theorists." Elegance has nothing to do with it.


I know that. So why did Bach & his sons refuse to accept Rameau's theory of chord inversion, preferring the old figured bass method? It seems to me that this is a theoretical disagreement.



> Of course his thinking included harmonic progressions.


After the fact, you can analyze his music that way, but it still conforms to older polyphonic ways of thinking: resolution, tension, passing tones, etc., so it is really not what we would consider "harmonic thinking" in any modern sense. There are no "major seventh chords" in Bach.



> *Please educate yourself before posting voluminously on issues you don't understand.* *It's tiresome cleaning up after you.*


Please don't throw around the idea that Bach was a harmonic thinker, because he was clearly a polyphonic thinker, and opposed Rameau. Why do you assume things blindly? At least I can think freely, outside the box of academia; apparently your "education" is a restriction to your thinking. If anyone should "clean their act up," it's you.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jerry Gerber said:


> If Bach was a theorist (he wasn't) can you direct us to any writings on music that can back up that statement?


This seems to be an argumentative strategy.

Harmony had not fully developed yet; of course Bach was not a harmonic theorist. However, I'm quite sure that there is some evidence somewhere on a dusty old library shelf which documents Bach & Sons' opposition to Rameau's theories.



> *As Edward pointed out, figured bass is not a theory, it is a form of musical shorthand to instruct the keyboard player how to harmonize a bass line.*


I know that, and I never said that figured bass was a theory; it's a method._*But it is also "a way of thinking" about chords*._

Why did Bach oppose Rameau's idea of chord inversion? This seems to be the inconvenient "elephant in the room."



> Perhaps what you mean is that figured bass is still used in the instruction of classical harmony, which was not its original purpose. Musicians who still use it in performance practice are interpreting works from the Baroque period. For all practical intents and purposes figured bass has been replaced with chord symbols and chord charts that guitarists and keyboard players use in many contemporary styles of music, excluding classical.


I can go along with that. Figured bass is best used for interpreting works from the Baroque period.


----------



## millionrainbows

bwv 1080 said:


> no, functional harmony is open and accepting of all gender and sexual identities


incuding major seventh chords, i presume?


----------



## millionrainbows

I think the difference in my thinking about 'what is harmonic thinking' as opposed to some other views espoused here (with plenty of personal put-downs about being 'uneducated') is that, for me, true harmonic thinking is based on the ear, namely, _my_ ear. This is the same old obstacle I have always encountered in dealing with more academic thinkers vs. what I would call freer, more modern, and leaning towards jazz thinkers.

Bach is, and will always remain to me, a more polyphonic thinker, too entrenched in the stylistic norms of his era to be truly free in a harmonic sense. Whatever harmonic thinking we can ascribe to Bach will always be tempered and dictated by the procedures of polyphony, such as passing notes, tensions and resolutions. To say that Bach was a harmonic thinker is therefore, to me, somewhat misleading, and is an after-the-fact conclusion of harmonic thinking applied in retrospect.

'Free' or more modern harmonic thinking accepts major seventh chords as what they are, and accepts harmonic entities as chords based on the ear, not stylistic procedures derived from the diatonic system of CP. Thus, all sorts of new areas are opened-up, free from the restraints of prescribed voice leading and root movement. Diminished seventh chords can be accepted as 'harmonic mechanisms' which can lead to new areas of harmonic meaning, such as placing different roots under them, substitution of chords, seeing triads within seventh chords, and so on.

To imply or outright characterize my thinking as being 'uneducated' is downright insulting, and totally unnecessary.

I would _think_ that this freer, more creative approach would be understood and embraced by anyone with good ears, especially to those who are present-day composers of music.


----------



## isorhythm

^You're in danger of becoming the music theory equivalent of people with personal websites who think they've discovered a grand unified theory of physics.

Fewer words, more music. If you can't illustrate what you're trying to say with some specific musical examples then you're probably not saying anything.

If your "ear" can't detect functional harmony in Bach then it's no good.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> ^You're in danger of becoming the music theory equivalent of people with personal websites who think they've discovered a grand unified theory of physics.


Irrelevant, personal, says nothing.



> Fewer words, more music. If you can't illustrate what you're trying to say with some specific musical examples then you're probably not saying anything.


I don't need to post any musical examples, especially at your behest.



> If your "ear" can't detect functional harmony in Bach then it's no good.


Oh, I can very clearly hear the harmonic elements in Bach's music. It was this very ability which got me into disputes with old-school, myopic teachers who did not recognize the harmonic truth of these implications. That's what I call putting the cart before the horse.

You have a nice day, too, isorhhytm.


----------



## Jerry Gerber

millionrainbows said:


> This seems to be an argumentative strategy.
> 
> Harmony had not fully developed yet; of course Bach was not a harmonic theorist. However, I'm quite sure that there is some evidence somewhere on a dusty old library shelf which documents Bach & Sons' opposition to Rameau's theories.
> 
> I know that, and I never said that figured bass was a theory; it's a method._*But it is also "a way of thinking" about chords*._
> 
> Why did Bach oppose Rameau's idea of chord inversion? This seems to be the inconvenient "elephant in the room."
> 
> I can go along with that. Figured bass is best used for interpreting works from the Baroque period.


No, it's not an "argumentative strategy". It's a rebuttal to an assertion you made that Bach was a theorist. Prior to Rameau's harmonic theory in the 18th century, there was much music theory before that. Contrapuntal theory by Fux, which Mozart studied, and other European contrapuntal theorists wrote and published their observations on the practice of counterpoint. But Bach published no theoretical writings. But I could be wrong, so please show me a theoretical paper by Bach on contrapuntal theory; I suspect you cannot.

You also wrote that Bach "opposed" the idea of chord inversion. Have you ever even analyzed one Bach 3-part invention, fugue or choral, or for that matter any of Bach's works? You'd find countless examples of 1st inversion chords; so where do you come up with the idea that he "opposed" the idea of chord inversion?

Words by "Millionrainbows": *Why did Bach oppose Rameau's idea of chord inversion?

*I copied your words because I guess you'll probably write "I didn't' say that!"

Nobody knows everything, in fact I myself know very little and I know I know little. But on the short time I've been on this forum, I can see you are pretending to be far more knowledgeable than you really are. You've made at least several statements that reveal this to me. I don't know, maybe you're 12 years old and very smart, but cannot admit when he's wrong or mistaken.


----------



## HenryPenfold

I'm sick of this identity politics nonsense, how the hell can harmony be homophobic???? The world's gone mad - I wanna get off .....


----------



## millionrainbows

Jerry Gerber said:


> No, it's not an "argumentative strategy". It's a rebuttal to an assertion you made that Bach was a theorist. Prior to Rameau's harmonic theory in the 18th century, there was much music theory before that. Contrapuntal theory by Fux, which Mozart studied, and other European contrapuntal theorists wrote and published their observations on the practice of counterpoint. But Bach published no theoretical writings. But I could be wrong, so please show me a theoretical paper by Bach on contrapuntal theory; I suspect you cannot.
> 
> Words by "Millionrainbows": *Why did Bach oppose Rameau's idea of chord inversion?
> 
> *I copied your words because I guess you'll probably write "I didn't' say that!"


*Okay, so in my post #16, I mistakenly said that "**I disagree in this case, since Bach and Rameau were both important theorists."* I should have said "were important musical thinkers." Big deal! This is a side issue of little importance.

But it _is known_ that Bach apparently had a vested interest in keeping the figured bass system, and in rejecting Rameau's more elegant system. It's in this book:





> You also wrote that Bach "opposed" the idea of chord inversion. Have you ever even analyzed one Bach 3-part invention, fugue or choral, or for that matter any of Bach's works? You'd find countless examples of 1st inversion chords; so where do you come up with the idea that he "opposed" the idea of chord inversion?


Don't take this too literally. Of course Bach used chords in inversions.

Be logical, don't be so argumentative. Seek the truth of the idea.

Bach opposed the idea of identifying a chord in first, second, or third inversion as being essentially the same chord, such as a C major. He was only concerned with figured-bass constructions, not in identifying chords.

I refer you to "A Geometry of Music" by Dmitri Tymoczko for this information:










Okay, I've listed two good sources for my argument. Let's see the same from your side. I challenge you to do the same. Why should I be the one doing all the work and "proving?"




> I copied your words because I guess you'll probably write "I didn't' say that!"





> Nobody knows everything, in fact I myself know very little and I know I know little. But on the short time I've been on this forum, I can see you are pretending to be far more knowledgeable than you really are. You've made at least several statements that reveal this to me. I don't know, maybe you're 12 years old and very smart, but cannot admit when he's wrong or mistaken.




This kind of personal remark is totally unnecessary, and is not encouraged by the moderators. Speaking of "12 year olds," I am very disappointed in you, Jerry. You should be more logical, and if you want to argue an issue, don't make testosterone-charged remarks like this.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> I know that. So why did Bach & his sons refuse to accept Rameau's theory of chord inversion, preferring the old figured bass method? It seems to me that this is a theoretical disagreement.


Why do you keep putting Rameau's theories and figured bass in the same sentences? They have nothing to do with one another. They don't do the same thing. They are phenomena in completely different categories! Get it? You are fundamentally confused about this in a way that seems impervious to correction.

What evidence do you have that Bach rejected Rameau's theory? Do you have some quotations or documentary evidence you'd like to share?



millionrainbows said:


> After the fact, you can analyze his music that way, but it still conforms to older polyphonic ways of thinking: resolution, tension, passing tones, etc., so it is really not what we would consider "harmonic thinking" in any modern sense. There are no "major seventh chords" in Bach.


How many times do you have to hear this before it sinks in?: Among common practice composers, linear, voice-leading considerations apply across the board whether or not a particular composer writes predominantly polyphonic or homophonic music.



millionrainbows said:


> At least I can think freely, outside the box of academia; apparently your "education" is a restriction to your thinking.


You haven't demonstrated that you can even see the box, let alone that you know what's in it.



millionrainbows said:


> Okay, I've listed two good sources for my argument. Let's see the same from your side. I challenge you to do the same. Why should I be the one doing all the work and "proving?"


Posting images of books covers isn't supporting your arguments. You need to quote actual content from these sources - words and ideas. You understand that, right?


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Why do you keep putting Rameau's theories and figured bass in the same sentences? They have nothing to do with one another. They don't do the same thing. They are phenomena in completely different categories! Get it? You are fundamentally confused about this in a way that seems impervious to correction.


I wouldn't characterize my posts that way. Are you following the discussion?



> What evidence do you have that Bach rejected Rameau's theory? Do you have some quotations or documentary evidence you'd like to share?


Are you reading the posts and following the discussion? You seem totally confused. I listed two good sources right above this post.



> How many times do you have to hear this before it sinks in?: Among common practice composers, linear, voice-leading considerations apply across the board whether or not a particular composer writes predominantly polyphonic or homophonic music.


That's really not what the discussion is about, because I'm not limiting "true harmonic thinking" to common practice thinking. This is _your _assumption. If you want to make that point, you need to say it, and assert it, not just use an unstated assumption to invalidate _my_ assertions. Are you following all this?



> You haven't demonstrated that you can even see the box, let alone that you know what's in it.


Well, I think you have demonstrated an inability to present a point, other than "because I said so."


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> Are you reading the posts and following the discussion? You seem totally confused. I listed two good sources right above this post.


You cited no evidence from these sources that Bach "opposed the idea of identifying a chord in first, second, or third inversion as being essentially the same chord." Once again, a picture of a book cover isn't evidence. Put up or shut up.



millionrainbows said:


> That's really not what the discussion is about, because *I'm not limiting "true harmonic thinking" to common practice thinking.* This is _your _assumption. If you want to make that point, you need to say it, and assert it, not just use an unstated assumption to invalidate _my_ assertions. Are you following all this?.


The OP clearly sets the parameters on CP era music. You made the discussion about Bach and Rameau, both of whom are CP composers. If you are discussing some other practice you need to say so and describe it.


----------



## Jerry Gerber

millionrainbows said:


> *Okay, so in my post #16, I mistakenly said that "**I disagree in this case, since Bach and Rameau were both important theorists."* I should have said "were important musical thinkers." Big deal! This is a side issue of little importance.
> 
> But it _is known_ that Bach apparently had a vested interest in keeping the figured bass system, and in rejecting Rameau's more elegant system. It's in this book:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't take this too literally. Of course Bach used chords in inversions.
> 
> Be logical, don't be so argumentative. Seek the truth of the idea.
> 
> Bach opposed the idea of identifying a chord in first, second, or third inversion as being essentially the same chord, such as a C major. He was only concerned with figured-bass constructions, not in identifying chords.
> 
> I refer you to "A Geometry of Music" by Dmitri Tymoczko for this information:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I've listed two good sources for my argument. Let's see the same from your side. I challenge you to do the same. Why should I be the one doing all the work and "proving?"
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of personal remark is totally unnecessary, and is not encouraged by the moderators. Speaking of "12 year olds," I am very disappointed in you, Jerry. You should be more logical, and if you want to argue an issue, don't make testosterone-charged remarks like this.


OK, whatever. Time is too valuable to waste. I refuse to engage with you anymore.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> You cited no evidence from these sources that Bach "opposed the idea of identifying a chord in first, second, or third inversion as being essentially the same chord." Once again, a picture of a book cover isn't evidence. Put up or shut up.
> 
> The OP clearly sets the parameters on CP era music. You made the discussion about Bach and Rameau, both of whom are CP composers. If you are discussing some other practice you need to say so and describe it.


Ok, Edward. I get the message. Have a nice day.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jerry Gerber said:


> OK, whatever. Time is too valuable to waste. I refuse to engage with you anymore.


Ok Jerry, you have a nice day too.


----------

