4 part-writing exercise - need evaluation

[fmr]

The original melody is clearly in Dorian mode.

Dorian mode is the origin of our modern minor mode. There is just one modification, and that is in the sixth grade, which would be B in the pure mode, but in the "music ficta" praxis, the B was usually sung and played flat, to avoid the diminished fifth interval.

So, using the "musica ficta" modifications (which would play B flat instead of B, and will also raise de C to C# when the next note is D, to get the leading tone), we get, in practice, what we now know as the minor mode. That's why the hymn is harmonized in minor, which perfectly fits.

That melody originally starts with D - G, which would get the Dorian (Protus) mode transposed to G. Harmonized, it would become G minor (sort of).

Bach used the melody in several tonalities, the one you are analyzing is transposed to B, which become B minor, when harmonized.

You may find here the original melody and the melody with the modifications introduced by Bach:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wer_nur_d ... 9Ft_walten

[ChamMusic]

I can understand where you are coming from historically, but...

It is NOT modal! The original Neumark tune and Bach's many variations are clearly tonal...even with just the melody.

First Phrase is in B minor
Second Phrase starts in the relative Major of D ( hence the A natural) and the goes back to B minor (A#)
Third Phrase is strongly in D major throughout
Fourth Phrase finishes it all in B minor

Melody.jpg

Let's not confuse the issue with unnecessary details regarding 1300 - 1600 musical foibles! :0)

[ChamMusic]

"Musica ficta" was pretty well 'gone' by the time of the original Neumark composition is the 1650s and was definitely an irrelevance by the time of the Bach versions.

Modern musicology usage of linked terms such as alteration, inflection, added accidentals is a little different at best to the way they were used by many Medieval / Renaissance theorists.

Anyway, this is a tonal harmony conversation and mentioning modes in this way will just potentially confuse the issue.

[fmr]

Anyway, this is a tonal harmony conversation and mentioning modes in this way will just potentially confuse the issue.

I kind of agree with you. Let's just treat it tonally, and accept the melody as being purely in a minor mode tonal key, to simplify procedures

That's what Bach did, anyway.

[ChamMusic]

Anyway, this is a tonal harmony conversation and mentioning modes in this way will just potentially confuse the issue.

I kind of agree with you. Let's just treat it tonally, and accept the melody as being purely in a minor mode tonal key, to simplify procedures

That's what Bach did, anyway.

Agreed!

Maybe we can have a Musica Ficta conversation somewhere else at some point...I do understand where you're coming from with that angle, but was worried that it might 'muddy the waters' here?

Reading my recent entries back, they came across slightly terse and abrupt...wasn't meant that way! :0

[fmr]

Reading my recent entries back, they came across slightly terse and abrupt...wasn't meant that way! :0

No problem. I didn't took it personally. Besides, you were right. In the best interest of the OP, it's better to keep things as simple as possible

[rbarata]

Reading my recent entries back, they came across slightly terse and abrupt...wasn't meant that way! :0

No problem. I didn't took it personally. Besides, you were right. In the best interest of the OP, it's better to keep things as simple as possible

Agree! Keeping that in mind can we use the same score and don't mix versions?
If you want I can post here the Reamenschneider version I'm using.

[fmr]

Reading my recent entries back, they came across slightly terse and abrupt...wasn't meant that way! :0

No problem. I didn't took it personally. Besides, you were right. In the best interest of the OP, it's better to keep things as simple as possible

Agree! Keeping that in mind can we use the same score and don't mix versions?
If you want I can post here the Reamenschneider version I'm using.

I think I have that too, but yes, post it, so we can all talk about the same version.

[rbarata]

I think I have that too, but yes, post it, so we can all talk about the same version.

Ok!
I'm out for the weekend but tomorrow I'll post it.
Thanks

[rbarata]

Ok, here it is the version I'm working on...

[rbarata]

So, here it is my analysis of the first part of the piece.
I kept changing the staff type just for convenience. Hope you don't mind, as long as you understand...

I started to check all the intervals between every pair of voices available. Marked in red those that
I think are broken rules or doubts from my side. There are several: direct 8ves, direct 5ths and even a tritone...









Then I determined the key. Judging by the key signature it could be D Major of B minor. It sounds like minor. I think the A# is a confirmation of B minor, more specifically B harmonic minor.
The collection of notes is bellow, as well as the scale formula,again confirming B harmonic minor.

B-C#-D-E-F#-G-A#

1-2-b3-4-5-b6-7

I have doubts about the A# when going down to F# (ex. last two notes in the soprano). Can you explain?

Next I made a chord progression analysis and found something not common, I think because it lacks a resolution. Probably because I'm looking just to the beginning of the complete piece.
Again, the chord qualities confirm B harmonic minor.



So....comments please.

[jancivil]

I think you can trust JS Bach as a master rather than look for broken rules.

There is little if any real point in what you've done. You need a real course. I'm sorry to have pushed you, me thinking it's time to push further was a mistake.

[rbarata]

...

?

[rbarata]

There is little if any real point in what you've done. You need a real course.

Don't feel sorry. How do you think I should approach choral analysis to give me some benefits (without a course)?

[fmr]

There is little if any real point in what you've done. You need a real course.

Don't feel sorry. How do you think I should approach choral analysis to give me some benefits (without a course)?

Contrary to what jan said, I think that's the right thing to do. Regarding your remarks:

1. Direct octaves are NOT and never were forbidden. They are even commonly accepted when the upper voice moves by a single degree. Remember that you are working with four voices, so, it is inevitable that some of the voices have direct movement between them.

2. The end of the first phrase is what is commonly called a supended cadence. We call a suspended cadence when the phrase ends with the V chord, and do not resolve that chord. This gives tension, and a sensation that things are likely to be continued (are suspended). It is common that pieces with two parts end the first part in the V chord (either with modulation to the tonality of the V, or simply by using a suspended cadence), and move back to the tonic (I) in the end of the second part. This kind of structure is known as arsis-thesis.

3- The presence of the A# means that we are in V chord (A# is the leading tone). The reason why the melody movement from A# to F# is aceptable is because we are not changing the chord, just exchanging notes (see how the A# appears in another voice).

4. If you can, sequence the chorale, and mute the inner voices (alto and tenor). Then listen to the two remaining voices alone, and play the bass alone. Then mute the soprano, and listen to just the other three voices. Mute each three voices, and listen to each voice alone too.

5. Now, mark the chords, using the tonal functions (I, iv, V, etc.). Mark when you think Bach performed a modulation, by marking between parenthesis the function of the chord related with the new tonality. NOTE: You already did that for the first phrase.

6. Study the different cadences (perfect, imperfect, evaded, suspended - AKA half cadence or semicadence, plagal, interrupted, etc.) because it is very important that you know all of them. You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_(music)