4 part-writing exercise - need evaluation

[ChamMusic]

ChamMusic
In the examples you've mentioned for the tritone treatment I could't find any tritone.
Are you considering harmonic or melodic tritones?
And are you considering only adjacent bars or not?

Are you using the same edition...the A. Mann translation?

There are various editions and they have surprisingly different content!

[rbarata]

ChamMusic
In the examples you've mentioned for the tritone treatment I could't find any tritone.
Are you considering harmonic or melodic tritones?
And are you considering only adjacent bars or not?

Are you using the same edition...the A. Mann translation?

There are various editions and they have surprisingly different content!

Can't find the edition. It's a revised edition with the colaboration of John Edmunds.
The introduction is dated on January, 1965.

[ChamMusic]

ChamMusic
In the examples you've mentioned for the tritone treatment I could't find any tritone.
Are you considering harmonic or melodic tritones?
And are you considering only adjacent bars or not?

Are you using the same edition...the A. Mann translation?

There are various editions and they have surprisingly different content!

Can't find the edition. It's a revised edition with the colaboration of John Edmunds.
The introduction is dated on January, 1965.

It's probably the same...

I was talking very generally about the surprising inclusion of the dreaded tritone / aug 4th of the scale itself in those examples after all Fux says about them...

The tritone each time is basically outlined in the overall melodic line...first bass example from E up to Bb:

Bass: F3, E3, F3, A3, Bb3, G3.

Looking back...they were musically sound notions, but weren't necessarily the most straightforward examples of what I meant from the book...long time since I used it in any depth and I really couldn't be bothered to trawl through it very far.

It was actually coated in dust! :0)

Main point was this:

Tritone was not as we know it / hear it now.
Aug 4th / Dim 5th were significantly different then in Just / Mean intonation etc.
Be aware of these historical elements with everything you study.
Sometimes 'rules' should be called 'guidelines'?

[ChamMusic]

'diabolus in musica'

Interesting historical fact about this stupid phrase, (which Fux does use in his revered tome)...

The tritone was NOT the only interval that was described in this way during that period of musical history! :0)

F natural / F# and Bb / B also get the devil label on more than one occasion from quite eminent musicians of the time.

[IncarnateX]

And since we are at it, there are actually some unresolved points of debate from the earlier counterpoint thread that we can reconsult now and put in their right places.

1. In the former thread, I wrote that counterpoint (both in Fux and Palestrina style) is the opposite of parallel harmonisation. To my surprise, some denied that and I never really understood why until it occured to me that they may not think of parallel harmonisation as different from traditional (e.g. choral) harmonisation, which would have steps similiar to counterpoint, e.g. avoiding moves in octaves or fifths. Well, parallel harmonisation means litterally moving whole chord structures in parallels, that is, all voices moves in the same direction by the same interval, which occurs a lot in modern music https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_harmony. Thus, it does indeed involve direct movements of fiths and octaves contrary to Fux‘ first rule of movement. In addition no voice can attain individuality by strictly parallel movements, so Palestrina would be off this too. Hope this clarifies the issue.

2. There was doubt whether parallel movements in thirds or sixths have to be avoided for longer periods too according to the species like the wiki says. The answer to this is simply that it is not an issue for Flux, but Palestrina style dictates that no interval should be written more than three times in a row, which includes thirds and sixths. In Palestrina style, this is simply a question of maintaining the individuality of voices. Since modern excercises in the species can be simplified or original versions of both Fux and Palestrina despite their different attitudes to harmony, one should not be surprised if the wiki as well as species exercises compile rules from both.

So, now it is off my chest. Thanks for reading. TLDR? Good choice. Congrats.

[rbarata]

I see...the only possible tritones I could find in your examples were melodic and not in adjacent bars.
I'm used to look for them mostly harmonically and, when melodic, in adjacent tones.
Hence my question.
In fact the historical side of music theory is really important to understand many of its subjects. It is also one of the difficulties I've found when comes the time to study subjects like counterpoint/voice leading/ 4- part, etc, because one must know exactly which historic period is studying. This thread if a good example of it. At a certain point I needed to clarify that I want to learn according Fux/Bach rules and not from any other later period. If such info has not been given I was being misleaded, unintentionally of course.
I believe in a music theory course theres a discipline for studying music theory history.

[ChamMusic]

when melodic, in adjacent tones.

That would be an a more straightforward example, yes! But, tritones as part of an overall melodic shape were also frowned upon as I mentioned previously.

I believe in a music theory course theres a discipline for studying music theory history.

Music theory courses come in all shapes and sizes...the possible permutations are endless! :0)

I want to learn according Fux/Bach rules and not from any other later period.

i think you've made that quite clear. If someone doesn't pick that up, then it's their problem for not reading the post properly! :0)

When you're ready...Just make sure at some point you move beyond Fux )and probably Bach as well to some extent) in your experimentation.

Just composed a quick 4 part chorale...my first for a long time. I think I can safely say that it still has direct influence from JS as I wrote it horizontally as 4 independent melodies. Fux...I suspect that some things from there are simply embedded after so many years as a composer / music teacher, but I don't think there's a hugely direct link to what I created! :0)

Feel free to have a listen and tell me it's a pile of ###. I'm NOT precious about my music...been doing it professionally for far too long to worry about that sort of thing! :0)

Slightly bad etiquette to post links in other people's threads, but we are looking at 4 part writing!

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=511385

[ChamMusic]

And since we are at it, there are actually some unresolved points of debate from the earlier counterpoint thread that we can reconsult now and put in their right places.

1. In the former thread, I wrote that counterpoint (both in Fux and Palestrina style) is the opposite of parallel harmonisation. To my surprise, some denied that and I never really understood why until it occured to me that they may not think of parallel harmonisation as different from traditional (e.g. choral) harmonisation, which would have steps similiar to counterpoint, e.g. avoiding moves in octaves or fifths. Well, parallel harmonisation means litterally moving whole chord structures in parallels, that is, all voices moves in the same direction by the same interval, which occurs a lot in modern music https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_harmony. Thus, it does indeed involve direct movements of fiths and octaves contrary to Fux‘ first rule of movement. In addition no voice can attain individuality by strictly parallel movements, so Palestrina would be off this too. Hope this clarifies the issue.

2. There was doubt whether parallel movements in thirds or sixths have to be avoided for longer periods too according to the species like the wiki says. The answer to this is simply that it is not an issue for Flux, but Palestrina style dictates that no interval should be written more than three times in a row, which includes thirds and sixths. In Palestrina style, this is simply a question of maintaining the individuality of voices. Since modern excercises in the species can be simplified or original versions of both Fux and Palestrina despite their different attitudes to harmony, one should not be surprised if the wiki as well as species exercises compile rules from both.

So, now it is off my chest. Thanks for reading. TLDR? Good choice. Congrats.

Did read! :0)

Nothing contentious here...makes sense to me!

[IncarnateX]

He he rbarata, people have ambitions on your behalf, they want you to imply the historical context of what you are doing and push you beyond following rules for the sake of following them. However, following rules to learn the craft was also a starting point to me, so I will not push you too if this is where you are. I do wonder, though, why you choose both Fux and Bach and not just one of them at a time? Bach studied Fux too and thus Fux is already implied in Bach’s own works, yet Bach evolved his own unique style beyond the scholastic restrictions of Fux, so they are not that easily compared, imo.

[fmr]

1. In the former thread, I wrote that counterpoint (both in Fux and Palestrina style) is the opposite of parallel harmonisation. To my surprise, some denied that and I never really understood why until it occured to me that they may not think of parallel harmonisation as different from traditional (e.g. choral) harmonisation, which would have steps similiar to counterpoint, e.g. avoiding moves in octaves or fifths. Well, parallel harmonisation means litterally moving whole chord structures in parallels, that is, all voices moves in the same direction by the same interval, which occurs a lot in modern music https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_harmony. Thus, it does indeed involve direct movements of fiths and octaves contrary to Fux‘ first rule of movement. In addition no voice can attain individuality by strictly parallel movements, so Palestrina would be off this too. Hope this clarifies the issue.

I think (and that's strictly my opinion) that the problem resides precisely in that harmonization doesn't necessarily means just "transposing" the same chord up or down. That would be a rather primitive, "naive" and simplisitc way to harminize something. Anyone a little more conscious woukd look for some variety, by inverting some chords, looking for some foreign notes to spice the chords, etc.

And that would no longer be "parallel harmonization" by your definition. Actually, I can't remember many examples of the situation you described: "moving whole chord structures in parallels, that is, all voices moves in the same direction by the same interval". And certainly NOT when we are talking about composing using "voice leading" (meaning linear layers of notes).

Look, for example, for "Bridge Over Troubled Water", which piano part was allegedly created by improvising. After two bars of chord blocks in the right hand, the piano goes for a more linear approach, where you don't find nothing like that "whole chord structures in parallels" anymore.

The score can be found here: https://musescore.com/user/23822/scores/5021653

Even in the so called "classical" music, when you have chord blocks, those chord blocks many times are treated as ONE voice, opposed to other voices that move in a counterpoint way in the same piece, like it happens, for example, in the Scriabine Etude, Op. 8 No. 12.

The Etude score can be found here: https://musescore.com/user/2749876/scores/3054671

[IncarnateX]

You are entitled to any opinion you want, but your statements of value does not change the fact that technically speaking, counterpoint is opposed to parallel harmonisation and that was all I tried to provide, a theoretical distinction and that one holds true. However, I do not agree that chords moves seldom occur in modern music. In classical music I would not expect them to, but think of Jazz, pop, fusion and rock, e.g. there would be no cool “Smoke on the water” guitar riff if parallel fifths were forbidden now a days

[IncarnateX]

And that would no longer be "parallel harmonization" by your definition

Do not know what you mean by that. It is not my definition but the wiki’s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_harmony
and you do not need to move a whole chord to call it parallel harmony but anything from two voices and beyond. Though in its extreme, it is a whole chord.

[ChamMusic]

and push you beyond following rules

Yes...but only when he wants to and feels he is ready! :0)

However, following rules to learn the craft was also a starting point to me

It was for me as well and for many others...can't argue with that.

Bach evolved his own unique style beyond the scholastic restrictions of Fux, so they are not that easily compared, imo.

That is a strong point...it might be best to look at Fux first and then move onto Bach? Or, just make sure you're aware of the potential for 'clashes' if you study both at the same time!

[fmr]

In classical music I would not expect them to, but think of Jazz, pop, fusion and rock, e.g. there would be no cool “Smoke on the water” guitar riff if parallel fifths were forbidden now a days

Did you read what I wrote? Did you look at the examples? The example you gave is exactly what I meant. You don't have "two voices" in the Smoke On The Water riff, you have simply one voice, doubled in fifths. That's exactly why fifths and octaves were "forbidden" in counterpoint - because one voice would disappear, since fifths and octaves act like a "double" of the same voice. If you read the rules "blindly" you loose the point entirely. And counterpoint cannot be understood always like it was defined by Fux. Bach had already left that. When you look, for example, at the Adagietto from Mahler 5th Symphony, you are looking at a contrapuntal piece (a perfect example of counterpoint as it was used in the late romantic period), yet the counterpoint rules followed are no longer Fux's rules.



Schoenberg and the Second Vienna School composers also did use conterpoint extensively (and even old forms, like the Passacaglia, etc.) but again with their own rules, adapted to the goals they were trying to achieve.

The Scriabine Etude I posted has octaves almost from the begin to the end, BTW. Except those "octaves" are not used like two voices. They are simply a sound reinforcement - a double.

[IncarnateX]

I do not know what you are on about now but as said, even if the movements are only with two voices it is still parallel harmony. Point is not how many voices you use but that you move them in parallels:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_harmony

In music, parallel harmony, also known as harmonic parallelism, harmonic planing or parallel voice leading, is the parallel movement of two or more lines (see voice leading).

Lines with parallel harmony can be viewed as a series of chords with the same intervallic structure. Parallel means that each note within the chord rises or falls by the same interval.

Now let us once again relate that to Fux’ first rule of movement:

“From one perfect consonance to another perfect consonance one must proceed in contrary or oblique motion”,

Figuratively speaking, I have just provided 2 + 2, now if anyone wants this to be other than 4, be my guest, but plz apologize me for stepping back and rest my case, for I have no more to say that would not be a reformulation of what is already said.