# I don't understand the difference between Classical music and Baroque music



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

in terms of their chord progressions. I am assuming that Baroque music uses the exact same chords as classical music but in different progressions? Are there any chords that weren't around in Baroque music that we use today? I would like a list of every chord that existed in the Baroque period. Why did 7th chords like D F A C# exist in the Baroque era but not the Renaissance era - who discovered them? Surely there are only so many permutations of notes within a chord that are possible under Baroque 'rules'. What are these rules?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

It's a common misconception that chord progressions are the primary thing that determines a style of music. The differences between Baroque and Classical music are much more a matter of texture, rhythm, and form than the kinds of chords used.

Charles Rosen's The Classical Style does a better job elucidating all of this than I ever could, but in brief:

- Baroque music does not dramatize the process of modulation to the dominant and back in the way that Classical music does (compare binary form to sonata form)
- Baroque music does not have the freedom of rhythm and phrasing that Classical music does (think of the "motor rhythms" of Vivaldi and Bach as compared to the smoother movement of Haydn or Mozart)
- Baroque music only strives to express a single mood or emotion in a given piece (or aria, etc.), while Classical music often expresses multiple contrasting moods


----------



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> It's a common misconception that chord progressions are the primary thing that determines a style of music. The differences between Baroque and Classical music are much more a matter of texture, rhythm, and form than the kinds of chords used.
> 
> Charles Rosen's The Classical Style does a better job elucidating all of this than I ever could, but in brief:
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply. I'm kind of new to theory - I passed a few intermediate theory exams when I was younger and so I am now at the point where I am able to work out whether a particular chord in a Bach Cantata is first inversion, second inversion or root position. However, what I can't get my mind around is the speed of harmonic change. Within the same piece, there can be passages where the harmony moves once a bar; others where the harmony moves twice a beat. For example in this piece. The harmonic change seems to be on every second beat or so. Listen from 20:26. I hate the ambiguity of not knowing the chords I am listening to. I want to be able to listen to any Baroque piece and immediately work out the chords as though I'm piecing together a formula on which the piece is built on.


----------



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> It's a common misconception that chord progressions are the primary thing that determines a style of music. The differences between Baroque and Classical music are much more a matter of texture, rhythm, and form than the kinds of chords used.
> 
> Charles Rosen's The Classical Style does a better job elucidating all of this than I ever could, but in brief:
> 
> ...


Also the book you suggest is aimed at the style of Mozart and Beethoven. Is there a book out that there focuses on Baroque counterpoint/harmony that might of more use to me? I don't want to be 'corrupted' by the classical style in my thinking.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Gondur said:


> Thanks for the reply. I'm kind of new to theory - I passed a few intermediate theory exams when I was younger and so I am now at the point where I am able to work out whether a particular chord in a Bach Cantata is first inversion, second inversion or root position. However, what I can't get my mind around is the speed of harmonic change. Within the same piece, there can be passages where the harmony moves once a bar; others where the harmony moves twice a beat. For example in this piece. The harmonic change seems to be on every second beat or so. Listen from 20:26. I hate the ambiguity of not knowing the chords I am listening to. I want to be able to listen to any Baroque piece and immediately work out the chords as though I'm piecing together a formula on which the piece is built on.


In harmonic analysis, you wouldn't analyze each of those as new chords. The majority of them would simply be passing notes that are dissonant against the current harmony but lead to the next one. Harmonic analysis is more about the outline of a piece than its details. In complex counterpoint, you'll be able to find all sorts of vertical formations that wouldn't be acceptable chords in common practice harmony.

Having a steady rate of harmonic change throughout an entire piece would simply lead to a dull, plodding sound. Varying the rate of harmonic change skillfully (and with purpose) is a mark of a good composer.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2014)

I don't really understand the difference either. All I can tell is that one goes I-IV-II-V-I and the other goes I-VI-IV-II-V-I. Beats me.


----------



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> In harmonic analysis, you wouldn't analyze each of those as new chords. The majority of them would simply be passing notes that are dissonant against the current harmony but lead to the next one. Harmonic analysis is more about the outline of a piece than its details. In complex counterpoint, you'll be able to find all sorts of vertical formations that wouldn't be acceptable chords in common practice harmony.
> 
> Having a steady rate of harmonic change throughout an entire piece would simply lead to a dull, plodding sound. Varying the rate of harmonic change skillfully (and with purpose) is a mark of a good composer.


Do you know of a book called the 'Fux Gradus Ad Parnassum'. It's much like a musical Newton's Principia in in that it sets forth the rules of counterpoint in Western Classical music up to the 20th century. It is written in Latin but there is an English translation by Alfred Mann, though I believe Mozart had studied the original Latin version. Would you recommend this book?

Is there a book in which there is a cantus firmus on which I can compose befitting rhythms and compare them to the model answer? The problem is there is often more than one interpretation I could write for a cantus firmus and so the interpretation I write might not necessarily be the one that is written in the answers.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Gondur said:


> Do you know of a book called the 'Fux Gradus Ad Parnassum'. It's much like a musical Newton's Principia in in that it sets forth the rules of counterpoint in Western Classical music up to the 20th century. It is written in Latin but there is an English translation by Alfred Mann, though I believe Mozart had studied the original Latin version. Would you recommend this book?


If you want to learn species counterpoint (up to the Baroque era), there are far worse ways than using Fux or a book based on Fux's principles. On the other hand, it doesn't actually cover counterpoint as was used by the later Baroque composers, and certainly nothing beyond that. Even if you want to keep yourself pure of post 1750 influences, you really can't. Your ear doesn't perceive music the same way that Vivaldi's, Corelli's, or Scarlatti's did (to say nothing of Monteverdi's).



Gondur said:


> Is there a book in which there is a cantus firmus on which I can compose befitting rhythms and compare them to the model answer? The problem is there is often more than one interpretation I could write for a cantus firmus and so the interpretation I write might not necessarily be the one that is written in the answers.


All music theory books I've encountered do have sample basses and such that the student can work with. On the other hand, music isn't like math (regardless of what some say): there is no "correct" solution to a given problem, just some that are better and some that are worse. The main purpose of studying counterpoint and harmony is to learn the principles behind what has been done in the past and train your ear to be sensitive to the various possibilities available at a given point.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> - Baroque music does not have the freedom of rhythm and phrasing that Classical music does (think of the "motor rhythms" of Vivaldi and Bach as compared to the smoother movement of Haydn or Mozart)


I am no expert on music theory, but I am a bit surprised that you should say this. I always thought baroque phrasing and rhythm (and melody) was a lot freer that classical. A lot of classical music is characterised by periodic phrasing, i.e. simple two bar phrases where the antecedent bar is followed by a fairly predictable reply. In contrast, baroque melodies (especially Bach) are developed using the "Fortspinnung" technique, where you are taken in all manner of unpredictable directions.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Baroque music will generally stick to one rhythm throughout a movement, or perhaps change to another one in a different section (as in Bach's St. Anne Fugue), but Classical music allows for the alteration of the pulse itself, and the smooth transition from one rhythm into another. Irregular phrase groupings are also quite prevalent in Mozart and Haydn and even Beethoven. It's not until the Romantic era where 4+4=8, 8+8=16 really took over above all else as the dominant phrase structure.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Gondur said:


> I want to be able to listen to any Baroque piece and immediately work out the chords as though I'm piecing together a formula on which the piece is built on.


There are no forumlae any more than there are actual rules in music theory, and it would be one waste of time mistaken premise to think you can find one formula wherein you could "work out the chords." Ear training, of course, helps that enormously, while "formula" sounds like there is just one recipe for all of baroque music -- which of course is just too simple to do the job.

I realize that while studying theory it is rather difficult to 'just listen' without exercising both what you know of theory and other skills which may be new to you (ear training.) Please, as the saying says about going through life and not forgetting once in a while to stop and smell the roses -- also once in a while remember to stop the theory obsessing and 'smell the music.'


----------



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

PetrB said:


> There are no forumlae any more than there are actual rules in music theory, and it would be one waste of time mistaken premise to think you can find one formula wherein you could "work out the chords." Ear training, of course, helps that enormously, while "formula" sounds like there is just one recipe for all of baroque music -- which of course is just too simple to do the job.
> 
> I realize that while studying theory it is rather difficult to 'just listen' without exercising both what you know of theory and other skills which may be new to you (ear training.) Please, as the saying says about going through life and not forgetting once in a while to stop and smell the roses -- also once in a while remember to stop the theory obsessing and 'smell the music.'


Then maybe you are right and my approach to this is too reliant on what's the right way in which counterpoint can be applied to cantus firmi when in fact there are many, many possible ways to do this (more ways becoming possible as the length of the piece increases. I actually thought about whether it is possible to derive a formula that describes how many ways counterpoint can be applied to cantus firmi but the variables involved make for a very complicated/convoluted derivation). But given that there are a finite number of chords, I had in my mind that if I learnt every chord and its inversions/special cases then every note of music that I hear can be ascribed to a particular chord and this would benefit me profusely such that I could have in mind all of the permutations of chords when composing. Then I guess it would be a case of trial and error in choosing which chord would be most 'aesthetically pleasing' to listen to from all of the possibilities granted through counterpoint and harmony. All of the Baroque masters must have had astute knowledge, perhaps they learnt every chord and the process they went through was one of trial and error or perhaps they had a natural disposition of foresight which enabled them to arrive at the most 'aesthetically' pleasing chord of many chords!


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Gondur --

Please don't take this as an attack. It isn't meant to be, only a piece of advice. If you use what you wrote above as a method of composing, or as an adjunct to a composing method, you are most likely to write dreadful music. Music is about what sounds right to your ear as you're writing it -- not what's "correct" in terms of practica, custom, etc. There is often no precedent for good-to-great music. It's what sounded right to the composer as he created it and wrestled with it. To reduce it to a system of chords/inversions arranged according to some rule for right and wrong is pretty much what a composing computer program would do, and it would produce "music" but not music.

cheers --

george


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

No shortcuts or silver bullets, unfortunately. A good working knowledge of harmonic analysis, species counterpoint, the baroque style and ear training are required to thoroughly understand and possibly replicate or pastiche the baroque music you like (if that is what you want to do)

Your questions indicate that your knowledge of music theory is not strong - why not start a music theory course with a competent teacher?


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Classical era has more standards works like the 4 movement symphonies,string quartets & other works.BAROQUE music is mostly music for religions.The harpischord in classical music later was no longer used after while.Baroque music has plenty of dances like suites.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Another big difference between the styles: Baroque music usually strived for a single well-defined "affect" in each movement, a particular aesthetic mood. In the classical era, sonata form pretty much took over, at least in initial movements. This meant that the movement contained internal contrasts, tensions between themes, moods, and key signatures. The tensions implied drama, which was rare in Baroque movements.

It's like a basic rule of creative writing: Every plot, every scene, is built around a conflict situation.

Rosen's book _The Classical Style _covers all this quite well.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> All music theory books I've encountered do have sample basses and such that the student can work with.
> *...music isn't like math: there is no "correct" solution to a given problem,* just some that are better and some that are worse. The main purpose of studying counterpoint and harmony is to learn the principles behind what has been done in the past and train your ear to be sensitive to the various possibilities available at a given point.


A book might have a printed solution, a working out, of any of its exercises, but as the man said, that is only one of several equally good ways of working out the problem... and there lies the problem of working on your own with a book instead of with a book _and_ a teacher.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Gondur said:


> Then maybe you are right and my approach to this is too reliant on what's the right way in which counterpoint can be applied to cantus firmi when in fact there are many, many possible ways to do this (more ways becoming possible as the length of the piece increases. I actually thought about whether it is possible to derive a formula that describes how many ways counterpoint can be applied to cantus firmi but the variables involved make for a very complicated/convoluted derivation). But given that there are a finite number of chords, I had in my mind that if I learnt every chord and its inversions/special cases then every note of music that I hear can be ascribed to a particular chord and this would benefit me profusely such that I could have in mind all of the permutations of chords when composing. Then I guess it would be a case of trial and error in choosing which chord would be most 'aesthetically pleasing' to listen to from all of the possibilities granted through counterpoint and harmony. All of the Baroque masters must have had astute knowledge, perhaps they learnt every chord and the process they went through was one of trial and error or perhaps they had a natural disposition of foresight which enabled them to arrive at the most 'aesthetically' pleasing chord of many chords!


You are laboring under at least one big misconception: that the fundamental unit of baroque music is the chord. It isn't. A taxonomy of chords will get you nowhere. You need to look at principles of counterpoint and dissonance treatment. You need to understand the baroque conception of tonal space - the hierarchy of diatonically related keys and how they are deployed in forming movements and other formal units. Maintaining your current focus on chords will become a major impediment to any fundamental understanding of baroque music.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Gondur, How much baroque music have you actually played? Playing is step one. But if you are serious about learning baroque compositional and performance practices, then try and accompany that with some serious reading. A few recommendations. The latter 4 are more historical in orientation, but all include significant musicological analysis of important works:

Robert Donington, _Baroque Music: Style and Performance: A Handbook_ (New York: W.W. Norton, 1982).

Wendy Heller, _Music in the Baroque_, from the series _Western Music in Context: A Norton History_ (New York: W.W. Norton, 2013).

John Walter Hill, _Baroque Music 1580-1750_ (New York: Norton, 2005)

Claude V. Palisca, _Baroque Music_ (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1983). One of the classic textbooks.

Richard Taruskin, _Music in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries_, vol. 2 of _The Oxford History of Western Music_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). I really like Taruskin's contextual approach, and his analyses are brief but first rate.

Let me second Mahlerian's, PetrB's, and EdwardBest's comments: There is no cookie-cutter approach, no one-size-fits-all theory. Donington's book (which is dated but still useful) opens with a chapter entitled "Getting the Feel." That's the issue: get the feel. At one point, while I was playing lots of baroque -- and well before I ever studied music theory -- I could invent pieces and improvise pieces in a baroque style simply from having played again and again hundreds and hundreds of typical baroque progressions / divisions. Start with playing a lot, then alternate between study (both history and theory) and playing. Along the way, do basic exercises: Take a Bach harpsichord work and score it for winds and violins (Bach himself famously did just this sort of tinkering with his own compositions); take a Vivaldi violin concerto and transpose it for oboe, etc.; study period pieces written specifically for young musicians (Bach wrote all sorts for his children). Hope all that helps.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I can add just a few observations.

I've noticed that Baroque composers like Bach don't really use the cadential 6/4 chord. That inversion could show up other places, but it's more common that they do other things at cadences. The Phrygian (VI-V) cadence was big in the Baroque era as a way to end a whole movement of a larger work, but practically died in the Classical.

Classical era is _homophonic_, meaning a very clearly expressed melody is played by any given set of instruments and there is also a distinct _accompanying _line. In Baroque music, a melodic line can melt into the texture and almost not be heard because all the other voices are very prominent and can serve as melodic lines too (a remnant from the older days of polyphony).
Bach Brandenburg Concerto No. 3, go to 5:42 to hear a Phrygian cadence


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Also, don't forget that baroque wigs tend to be much more massive and extravagant, while classical ones are easy to recognize through their more gentle appearance and the elegant rolls on each side.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Also, don't forget that baroque wigs tend to be much more massive and extravagant, while classical ones are easy to recognize through their more gentle appearance and the elegant rolls on each side.


It can even be figurative of their music too. The Baroque composers liked complexity in the form of things like extemporizing, embellishing, making simple things turn ornate (think of fugues even). Classical Composers are more simple and straight forward.


----------

