Channels, Spring 2017

Page 30 Longnecker • The Partimento Tradition accompaniment apart from musical notation. 29 The details of this system are beyond the scope of this discussion, but Rameau’s view of the benefits of his new system is indicative of Enlightenment ideals. Though Rameau’s new system of thoroughbass pedagogy still contained numerous and self-admitted flaws, such as excessive simplicity of notation, according to Christensen. He claims, “with Rameau’s new method, continuo playing was purely a mechanical process of chord placement and finger movement, or, as he proudly noted, just a ‘méchanique des doigts.’ By vastly reducing the plethora of chord signatures, and further by prescribing a few simple rules of chordal connection, Rameau had ostensibly distilled one of the most daunting and time-consuming tasks of musical practice into a process accessible to everyone. What had previously taken years of practice to perfect could now be accomplished in only a few months’ time.” 30 Conclusion: Rameau vs. the Partimento Tradition The Enlightenment era progressed and principles such as systematic presentation of ideas or the accessibility of reason regardless of social standing characterized European thought. As a result, the partimento pedagogym with its heuristics, such as the règle de l’octave, seemed ungainly, out-of-date, and undesirable. In contrast, Rameau’s theory of the fundamental bass, despite its numerous internal contradictions and revisions, seemed much more attractive. Allegedly, Rameau supported his theory with scientific experiments and elegantly explained a knotty topic, much like Isaac Newton reduced the galaxy’s workings to a few simple laws. 31 Rameau combined this strand of Newtonian, empiricist thought with Cartesian epistemology, seeking to derive principles from theory first before practice. Consequently, he turned to mathematics as the foundation of his theory rather than laws derived from his observations of music. 32 These philosophical influences illustrate one reason that Rameau succeeded in his reception where partimento started to fail. Rameau capitalized on the ideas in vogue at the time. His presentation of his theory evolved to match prevailing philosophies even within the Enlightenment era. In Thomas Christensen’s words, “[Rameau] showed an uncanny genius for casting his theory in a rich assortment of intellectual metaphors and models that enjoyed high prestige among his readers.” 33 Unlike the more rigid, tradition-focused operating methods of the Neapolitan schools that provided the specific environment for partimento to flourish, teachers could present Rameau’s theories in the rhetorical and cultural garments of different philosophies as the currents of the Enlightenment changed and developed. Another factor contributing to the rise of Rameau’s theory is succinctly explained by Holtmeier: “The singular and indeed puzzling success of Ramellian theory can substantially be attributed to the fact that Rameau never fledged a real theoretical opponent, someone 29. Ibid., 58. 30. Ibid., 60. 31. Thomas Christensen, Rameau and Musical Thought in the Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 7. 32. Ibid., 11-12. 33. Ibid., 304.