Should Rameau Be Avoided

I have beeb studying fux and was going to get into rameau but I have been reading distressing things like this:

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/002-3_bach_kep.html

Any advice?

I'm also wondering if perfect and deceptive cadences existed before rameau, because it looks like Bach used them.

First welcome aboard to YC. Second, a good choice on counterpoint text. About what to study. Everyone has their own opinion what to and what not study. Bach in his time wrote a great amount of keyboard literature that one can look into. Remeau on the other is also a probably you should look into. Know what is out there.

Cadences existed long before Rameau. In fact, cadential processes of Renaissance music are the embryo which gradually evolved into the common practice harmonic functions that Rameau systematized. Check out the harmony book by Dieter de la Motte (not sure of the spelling). It gives a nifty historic perspective of the birth and evolution of tonality. Interesting to follow how dissonant chords that appear in cadential processes (or general voice-leading processes involving anticipations, suspensions and the such) eventually get perceived and used as autonomous chords, so that the basic TSD system grows toward increased dissonance and complexity until its dissolution into atonality and the such.

I have beeb studying fux and was going to get into rameau but I have been reading distressing things like this:

http://www.schilleri...3_bach_kep.html

Any advice?

I'm also wondering if perfect and deceptive cadences existed before rameau, because it looks like Bach used them.

Hello, and welcome to YC!

The text you've linked is very unfair. Comparing Rameau's Treatise on Harmony to the composition style of Bach is nonsense. Harmony is only a part of a composition, there are also melody, counterpoint, form, orchestration, etc., too. Rameau's treatise is not a "How to compose?" textbook.

So my answer is no, Rameau should not be avoided, however you should avoid texts with such sentences:

"The ensuing history of music has been a war between the continuators of the Bach tradition, and the followers of Rameau..."

(in this sentence Bach/Rameau can be replaced with tonal/atonal, classical/romantic style, etc. - just use your imagination)

Máté

Hello, and welcome to YC!

Well, these texts about a supposed fight between Rameau and Bach are a little exaggerated. Of course there is differences in approach: before Rameau, for example, harmony was a synonym of counterpoint - they were virtually the same thing. After Rameau, harmony and counterpoint essentially dealt with the same matter (simultaneous sounds) but by different method.

All those great history materials are important to study, for their historical value and for their usage today, to build one's craft through tonal music (super important imho to develop a keen ear to work on 20th and 21th centuries styles).

The "birth" of Rameau's theories made a way to music become less poliphonically intrincated (the great period of Baroque music) to a more harmony-based (homophonic) music, which echoed mainly at the Romantic era. These textures, of course, are not the "rules in stone" for each style, but archetypes, clichés.

So, read 'em all and try to absorb all that them can teach you.

Rameau's letter is referred to time when he still struggled for his recognition and this letter is addressed to the influential man. Rameau tells that he posses good musical taste and he in some time (but for some time only) win high recognition as composer. He claims as well that he posses l knowledge about music nature more as other musicians. Apparently he told about his theory of harmony. Indeed, Rameau formed method of chord progressions as result of analysis of known music works. Nevertheless his interpretation wasn't ready for achievement of really good composition results although it was in fashion for long time.

What was result? Famous Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote:

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

Yuri Vilenkin

Sorry, yesterday I mixed up texts and intended to send namely following:

„The opinion is known that music theory was always able only to follow the actual music practice, somewhat systematize it ( for example to introduce necessary terminology) and to help the further practice in this way. With it the music practice depends from existing in its time music instruments. Rameau's activity was preceded by appearance and rather wide spreading of such such key instruments as harpsichord and clavichord which made possible wide use of chords and experiments with them.

As Rameau wrote he generalized music practice of the preceding 40 years. So the things such as classification of chords on the basis of their fundamental notes and chord inversions, chord progressions were introduced by him for description of real practice and accordingly may be used for its instruction and for composition. The question was important how the new method efficient in comparison with other ones- methods of fundamental bass and counterpoint. In principle method of chord progressions fulfill same tasks-control over dissonances for providing euphony and providing bounds of frequency components of music signal from different time intervals. From the other hand its use is essential easier (simpler)s and the melody but not so called harmony is main in majority of music genres what emphasize the importance of convenience of the harmony tools use.

Rameau's attempts to build a profound music theory with notions of naturalness of fundamental bass of the chord and of major and minor triads failed. It is possible to suppose that positive Rameau's role is limited by his conclusions from in his time known practice. Hardly his books are deserves careful study for many peoples today with exception of somebodies with very special interests. Besides according some references (see for example

http://www.mariotrane.com/guitar_lessons_pages/rameau.html )

his main treatise is "bulky" and "often difficult, obscure and diffuse".

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

Yuri Vilenkin