Two leading tones in a contrapuntal melodic line

[rbarata]

Is it allowed?

I couldn't find anything about this in any site or book. They alaways mention that the penultimate melodic tone must be the leading tone, but nothing is said about using it in the middle of the melodic linec (and in the end, as well).

Thank you

[Ogg Vorbis]

Is it allowed?

I couldn't find anything about this in any site or book. They alaways mention that the penultimate melodic tone must be the leading tone, but nothing is said about using it in the middle of the melodic linec (and in the end, as well).

Thank you

Yes this is okay.

[rbarata]

Thanks for the reply, Ogg Vorbis.

I asked this same questio in other forums because different people say different things. So, I suspect this is not related with poor knowledge but because peole are refering to different epoches, i.e., maybe this is ok in 18th century but it was not ok in the 16th.

What do you think?

[Ogg Vorbis]

What do you think?

Howdy rbarata,

In Palestrinian style, there is nothing prohibitive against the use of a leading tone resolving right in the middle of a phrase. If you think about it, why would there be? This would be an arbitrary kind of rule and from my perspective, the governance of motion is not arbitrary - it normally have very clear and logical reasons.

18th century voiceleading - even more variety abounds. Therefore you can really commonly find lots of examples of stepwise resolutions in mid phrase. In fact, 18 century styles are USUALLY cadencing somewhere in mid phrase in addition to endings. I think that this is part of the baroque style.

If you are studying species counterpoint such as Fux, try not to confuse the rules of motion with actual music. Usually in the study of counterpoint, there is much more attention paid to voiceleading guidelines and restrictions because the point is to teach you something...something about typical movement and regular resolutions, etc.

But out in the wild, you'll find musicality pushing the voiceleading and the phrase along. The restrictive rules are just to get you to the point where you can handle the basic mechanics without falling all over yourself when you are later trying to create music.

Sort of like running "ladders" on the old tennis team. We would face the tennis courts sideways and the coach would blow the whistle and we would run, touch the first line, run back and touch the base line, run and touch the second line, run back and touch the base line, etc., etc., etc.

This was NOT tennis. However if you ran enough ladders you could get anywhere on the court you needed to in a flash without having to think.

That was the point. So it is in species counterpoint. Frickin hard but awesome!

[rbarata]

Hi Ogg Vorbis

In Palestrinian style, there is nothing prohibitive against the use of a leading tone resolving right in the middle of a phrase. If you think about it, why would there be? This would be an arbitrary kind of rule and from my perspective, the governance of motion is not arbitrary - it normally have very clear and logical reasons.

Well, I don't think this is a rule or at least I never saw it written. But from all the examples I've seen from Counterpoint's initial stages (Fux or Palestrina), I never saw an example of its usage in the middle of a melodic line. Let's say it's not a rule, it's rather a common practice not to use it. Unless you know some example, of course.

18th century voiceleading - even more variety abounds. Therefore you can really commonly find lots of examples of stepwise resolutions in mid phrase. In fact, 18 century styles are USUALLY cadencing somewhere in mid phrase in addition to endings. I think that this is part of the baroque style.

Right! You can find examples in some Bach's pieces. But as far as I know, Bach was an inovator and changed some of those "initial" rules.

If you are studying species counterpoint such as Fux, try not to confuse the rules of motion with actual music. Usually in the study of counterpoint, there is much more attention paid to voiceleading guidelines and restrictions because the point is to teach you something...something about typical movement and regular resolutions, etc.

But out in the wild, you'll find musicality pushing the voiceleading and the phrase along. The restrictive rules are just to get you to the point where you can handle the basic mechanics without falling all over yourself when you are later trying to create music.

You are confirming what I though as a good plan. When I looked to Counterpoint, four-part writting and today's harmony "rules" I've found a common ground which is Counterpoint. In fact, my oppinion is that Counterpoint is the mother (or father ) of today's harmony usage. So, I decided to start my harmony studies by counterpoint and in the process find the connections (and what changed) along all the epoches that harmony went through.
I think this is a good plan, probably the hardest, but in my oppinion, the most prolific.

That was the point. So it is in species counterpoint. Frickin hard but awesome!

Hard but really interesting. This was the base of all that we do today.

[Ogg Vorbis]

I think an example of what you're saying is in D minor. So the C# would be used cadentially but elsewhere in the phrase?

I think it's not something I've seen in Fux, Piston, etc. but I don't think it's against against the rules per se.

Your plan was my plan. I am grateful for my firm grounding in counterpoint because I don't struggle with the mechanics of part writing as much. It's very second nature. Good luck and feel free to IM me with questions (not that I am an expert.)

[rbarata]

I think an example of what you're saying is in D minor. So the C# would be used cadentially but elsewhere in the phrase?

I think it's not something I've seen in Fux, Piston, etc. but I don't think it's against against the rules per se.

The way how I see this altered tone (C#) is that a half tone between C#-D has a stronger tendency to resolve to the tonic than a whole tone C-D. I don't know if you agree with that.
In the case of Dm the leading tone is C but it is changed into a C#. My interpreation is: if the initial tone is the tonic and the final too, it makes the listener perceive D as the key. The move from C# to D makes C# being perceived as the Leading tone but it's only at the end that we get this confirmation.
But what happen if we use C as leading tone? I believe the effect is the same but not so "strong".

Nothing makes us avoid the use of a leading tone in the middle of the melody as long as we resolve it right after.
But there's a problem in this case: if we use C# along the melody we could never clearly establish the key because a scale with a C# and a Bb simply does not exist. Basically if we use it along the melody (as well as the Bb) we would be reinforcing the idea that such a scale exist, which is not true.
So, in this case I think the C# should be used only in the end as a "quick fix" to the tonic.

Maybe I'm just fantasizing...I'm no expert.

Good luck and feel free to IM me with questions (not that I am an expert.)

Thanks, I will if I need.

[JumpingJackFlash]

The way how I see this altered tone (C#) is that a half tone between C#-D has a stronger tendency to resolve to the tonic than a whole tone C-D. I don't know if you agree with that.
In the case of Dm the leading tone is C but it is changed into a C#.

In Dm, C-natural is NOT a leading note, it is the subtonic. To make it into a leading note, it needs to be raised by one semitone (to C#) - as you have found out, this creates a stronger pull to the tonic.

There are several minor scales, but only one minor key. In the key of D minor, you might encounter both C-natural and C#, they both belong to the key.

There are a few rules regarding leading notes; don't double them, and they generally resolve upwards to the tonic (although there are exceptions).

By not doubling them, we mean not having two leading notes in different voices of the same chord at the same time - this is a vertical not a horizontal consideration. (For example, the chord of G major should not be voiced with two B's in it in C major).

Horizontally, I do not know of a reason why the same melodic line should not contain two leading notes at different points (for example one in the middle and one at the end). (However, it is true that a leading note resolving to the tonic, especially in the highest voice, creates a certain feeling of finality (like an implied perfect cadence), and in some styles it might be seen as advisable to avoid this in the middle of a phrase).

I would not consider what Sibelius tells you to be gospel. It is only a computer programme at the end of the day and its usefulness is limited. Far better to rely on reputable books on the subject and follow what they say.

Also, do not get bogged down with this. It is only a very minor point in the scheme of things. Species counterpoint is a useful exercise, but it is not much more than that. It would be a better use of your time, in my opinion, to go through the different species a little quicker and get onto writing "real" music (using imitation and such, or progressing onto what might be termed free counterpoint).

[rbarata]

Thanks for the reply,JumpingJackFlash

There are several minor scales, but only one minor key. In the key of D minor, you might encounter both C-natural and C#, they both belong to the key.

Can you elaborate this a bit more?

[JumpingJackFlash]

Thanks for the reply,JumpingJackFlash

There are several minor scales, but only one minor key. In the key of D minor, you might encounter both C-natural and C#, they both belong to the key.

Can you elaborate this a bit more?

I assume you know of the different types of minor scale; natural, melodic and harmonic?

The minor key effectively uses a mixture of all of these scales.

The best way to think about it, is that the sixth and seventh notes of a minor key are variables. Sometimes they are according to key signature, sometimes they are raised by one semitone. We use accidentals for the latter, but that doesn't mean the notes are chromatic (they're not).

As you probably know, the key of D minor has one flat in it (Bb). At some point however, people realised that raising the seventh note by one semitone created a stronger pull to the tonic. This was especially true at the end of phrases (cadence points) to make the end more final.

However, the 'problem' with that is that it created an augmented interval between the sixth note of the minor scale and this sharpened seventh. Augmented intervals were frowned upon as they were difficult to sing. To get over this, people also started to raise the sixth note of the minor scale by one semitone when it ascended to the raised seventh (and then to the tonic). (This forms what later became the ascending melodic minor).

When going down the scale, the seventh note didn't need to be sharpened (as it didn't rise to the tonic), and so it was not necessary to sharpen the sixth either. (This forms what later become the descending melodic minor, which is the same as the natural minor).

This is obviously a simplified explanation; I hope it helps.

[rbarata]

This is obviously a simplified explanation; I hope it helps.

Clear as limpid water.

Thanks

[CS80]

This is obviously a simplified explanation; I hope it helps.

Clear as limpid water.

Thanks

Actually I think that was a very clear explanation... and thank goodness for autotune because no interval is hard to sing these days

[rbarata]

Actually I think that was a very clear explanation...

Indeed