Hi,
i am studing counterpoint, and i am busy with choral writing now in te time of Bach.
I get a bit stuck with the progressions, because you have so little possibilities. All i see is:

I-II-V-I
I-IV-V-I
I-VI-(or III)-V-I (III and VI as passing chords)

applied dominants (V of V, or V of II,etc.)

or prolonged progressions:
(II-V) of V, etc

the VII as an subsitution for V (without root).

(the seventh on every chord, also in the bass)

Next to that, i can only use first inversions,
second inversions i can only use in a 4 - 3 suspension (so almost never).

Is this all? or are there more possibilities?
Thank you.

I may stand corrected but I don't think that chord progressions are the point in contrapuntal music, its the interplay between the separate lines.

I'm not very familiar with Bach's choral work. In the WTC, the preludes often have chord progressions, but as you remark, those are pretty simple. The fugues, really don't have chord progressions as such. The harmonies are kind of a side effect of the polyphonic writing. I imagine that his choral writing will be very similar.

Victor.

Chordal thinking as we know it is actually somewhat later than Bach. Bach's harmony is a result of proper voice leading and a great deal of ingenuity and imagination.

The root notes of chords were recognized, but as scale degrees as opposed to the root notes of chords per se. The 'vertical columns' known as chords in our time weren't really recognized as such before Rameau, and there are still those who think that Rameau got it all wrong (cf. Heinrich Schenker and his minions). There were progressions, certainly, but it makes more sense to look at them in terms of figured bass or thoroughbass than chords.

You're not stuck to your base note of course. Modulate into another root key and back, that also creates tension (Bach has done this to great effect).
And (but you probably know this) thematic invention and its variation was always important, the chords (as we now call it) were indeed only second to the musical theme.

Sort of. Counterpoint is often misunderstood as being synonymous with polyphony (i.e. many independent voices, not polyphony like Korg and Roland).

Counterpoint is the study of note relationships and you have counterpoint in perfectly homophonic (one main melodic voice, relatively static supporting voices) textures.

But you are right, you don't really study "chord progressions" in counterpoint.

Seems like what you should be doing is looking at the chorale melody ("cantus firmus") and put that in your soprano. Next, apply a bass part that treats dissonance correctly, begins and ends on a perfect consonance. Then apply the same idea with the tenor and alto parts, except you can have imperfect consonances at the beginning and end.

Come to think about it, shouldn't you be starting with two voices only and work your way up to SATB? That's what most counterpoint studies do.

Who are you studying with or what book are you using?

Hm? Isn't figured base evidence of chordal thinking? Chord on every scale step, play that chord on the bass note, unless the figures tell you otherwise?

Victor.

hi all, thank you for your replies!

to Ogg Vorbis: i am studing 'counterpoint in composition' from Felix Salzer and Carl Schachter. I've done the first species until the fifht species (2 and 3 voices) and now i am beginning with the chorale and after that combined species.

I dont want to get into the discussion if harmonies (chords) are / are not important in counterpoint. A harmonic progression is a structual framework within which the contrapuntal texture takes shape. For in the chorale the prolonged chord with its harmonic associations is the matrix out of which melodic lines orginate. Harmonie and counterpoint are no seprate things but complete eachother.
But anyway this is another tread.

Still leaves me with the question in my first post: are there more possibilities?

Yes and no.

The concept of a 'chord' is much less flexible than the concept of a scale degree.

A good example of how this leads to problems is what people today call a suspended fourth chord. People use this chord without the attendant voice leading, that is, they neither prepare nor resolve it. Which is fine, but it isn't a suspension.

As for the OP's concerns, the limitations you are struggling with are there for pedagogical reasons. The authors of the book in question are trying to develop certain attributes by limiting your choices at first.

It is one of the most annoying things about traditional compositional training: 'Do this because we say it's good for you. Don't ask why because you don't know enough yet to ask such questions.'

Which of course, is one of the reasons why so few people study such things these days.

anyway what is so special about the characteristics of Bach's tunes. Don't the Sex Pistols rate a mention too. "God same the Queen" starts off whith 1 - V - 1V - V. Come on analyse that if you will!

mattie,

I recommend you read a paper by the Princeton theorist Dmitri Tymoczko. It examines, in great detail, the chord progressions in 30 Bach Chorales.
His site is a bit crap so I can't link directly to the paper (which is in MS Word format) but you'll find it at... http://www.music.princeton.edu/~dmitri/ under the title of "Function Theories: A Statistical Approach".

Dmitri! I forgot about him. Nor did I know of this paper.

You're right nuff - that site is irritating, has some interesting stuff tho'! thx for the link

Wauw, thank you nuffink!! i think this will give me the answers i need!


i'll come back when i have studied this paper..

Good point. Last summer was the first time I accompanied some people from figured bass. A large part of the problem was sussing out how the figures described "this is a very simple chord, except that a note is held over from the previous'.

Bach arias are ridiculously complicated to play from figured bass.

Victor.