Three People and a Question

Meet Louis Bourgeois, c. 1510-1560. He was John Calvin’s music man, compiling the Genevan Psalter in its original form and providing us with many of the “old” tunes like Old Hundredth, Old Hundred and Twenty-Fourth, etc. His harmonizations are typical, his bass lines are fairly smooth, and he’s unabashed about using what we’d call “inverted” chords. Who wouldn’t be? But he lived before Rameau, so he didn’t exactly know he was writing with inverted chords. He was, ostensibly, only following the rules of counterpoint and making his bass line singable.

Meet Claude Goudimel, c. 1520-1572, who produces harmonies of the Psalter for private use in homes of Calvinists. These were supposed to be easy ways of singing harmony around the table, since one couldn’t do it in Church. People usually comment on his rhythmic spiciness, but if you notice his harmonies, they’re similar to Bourgeois except that they never (well, hardly ever) use inverted chords. Goudimel’s bass lines are ridiculously hoppy, because no matter what chord you’re going to, the bass will always have the fundamental. There are a handful of exceptions that I’ve seen—not many at all. Its his preference for root position chords that elicits the complaints from congregants that he’s so “jerky”.

Meet Jean-Philippe Rameau, 1683-1764. Norton’s A History of Western Music states that his great contribution to music theory was “asserting that a chord keeps its identity through all its inversions and that the harmony of a passage is defined by the root progression rather than by the actual lowest note sounding. These concepts, now staples of music theory, were revolutionary at the time.” Rameau does this by introducing the concept of a “fundamental bass” or “root” that is, in its essence, the defining tonal note of the chord.

The question: if these ideas are so revolutionary, then why does Cladue Goudimel, 150 years before Rameau, assiduously seek out the fundamental bass in all his harmonies? How did he make all his chords in root position at the expense of a singable bass line, without even knowing what root position was? How can you be not aware of going against the common practice of your own time in such a noticeable way? And, if he was aware, what was he aware of? Surely not that he was going out of his way to give the bass the fundamental, because the “fundamental” as a concept shouldn’t exist yet. Could he have done this without even knowing what he was doing? Why did he?


Think aloud.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s