4 part-writing exercise - need evaluation

[ChamMusic]

4 points? They had a kind of score system relative to type of breaches? What a creativity killer. Okay, I withdraw my teacher confidence statement. I would feel like starting a dissonance rebellion too.

They still do have that sort of system in place at ALL levels!

That's how exercises / composition exams etc get marked..with a finely detailed assessment scheme! :0)

In particular, the way that Renaissance Counterpoint / Bach Chorale / 4 Part Chorale assessments are done is VERY restrictive and ridiculously anachronistic...especially if you figure in today's equal temperament intonation!

The more 'free' composition modules are less so, but there are still many specific 'boxes' to be ticked if you want the grades!

[IncarnateX]

I aware of why parallels are avoided (I wholly agree with fmr that harmonic thought vanishes w. parallel fifths) but Bach was well beyond worrying about it I think.

Bach was a rebellion. We should agree to that at this point. However, it does not seem to be Fux’ explicit argument for avioding parallel fifths that it lose harmony. It is simply taken granted in his first rule, which he just states in the beginning and later he says it is hard for singers to deal with (page 33), and as already shown on page 6, it is still a principle to follow as much as possible even in 4 part writing. Thus, avoiding parallel fifths or octaves are not restricted to two voice writings but a general principle defining counter point.

[jancivil]

Yeah, I thought 4 points was a lot for the one bit in a very detailed test.
I wasn't in a composition focus at all, but I had the theory the composition students had because we were tested on entry. So again, I had no notion of being particularly creative, it was like trade school for me.
I suppose I retained the stoned notion I had as a child of having the capacity to become a composer but I was just trying to get my shit together and catch up to the legit kids at this point.

I tell you what I thought was not very creative was the composition elective I took my second year there. It was strictly from write 12-tone for a grade. I mean really. Later I read of Frank Zappa's notions of the thing around that age, coming from a pretty retarded notion that since he drew rather well that the beauty of your dots would mean something. Then it was the correctness of the numbers. Then he found it all sounded really ugly and after writing a bit of that he decided to go more melodic. "Then people told me my melodies were ugly."




Actually I cared a lot about learning serial dodecaphony and did for years afterwards. I got to where I could make it up on the spot without doing all that.

It was that this course (for some reason there was no class) had nothing to recommend it for why your composition was being judged except it had to follow this and the other rule.

[ChamMusic]

=passing notes and suspended notes (other devices as well such a chordal leaps and anticipations) quite cunningly at times to disguise / lessen the impact of parallels...

I think focus on 'impact of parallels' misses the forest for the trees. The creativity of the lines, and those are great examples as drivers for the harmony may be closer to Bach's thought. I'm aware of why parallels are avoided (I wholly agree with fmr that harmonic thought vanishes w. parallel fifths) but Bach was well beyond worrying about it I think.

Yes, I have to agree with all that you say here.

I sort of sounded like I was suggesting that Bach was obsessed with deliberately avoiding parallels...I suspect that nothing was further from the truth! :0) as you say, he was way beyond those thought processes and simply writing great melodic lines.

I think focus on 'impact of parallels' misses the forest for the trees.

Agreed!

There are many example of parallels in Bach's chorales...they ALL work for a wide variety of reasons.

In a lot of harmonic scenarios, P. 5ths and octaves etc can cause issues with the sound of the finished product, but sometimes they're 100% fine and just part of a successful solution.

My big moment as a student was the teacher who slammed a particular chorale of mine for it's parallel 5ths at a key moment.

I argued that it sounded fantastic.

I argued that it was the best solution.

He disagreed.

His solution, (yes I did challenge him to produce one), sucked...his words, not mine! :0)

Sadly he 'won' quite a few other 'discussions'! :0)

[IncarnateX]

They still do have that sort of system in place at ALL levels!

Well, I studied at a pre-conservatory school at a time where a good deal of courses were pass/not passed, so our compostion exercises where fortunately evaluated qualitatively. Mainly it was about deciding whether we had reasons to break a rule in which case it should be argued why or just had made errors in trying to follow them.

[jancivil]

I personally found a necessity to compartmentalize learning to part-write, according to the known, tried-and-true as it were, procedures, as strict as they were, vs composing. Where the twain met was this elective course and I wasn't having it. In fact I dropped the course before the final.

I embarked on composing as my whole thing as a musician a few years later. I knew from the part-writing courses I could, you know, write parts, and deal in harmony. I actually developed a romantic style but I didn't take my compositions too seriously, I mean it was pretty derivative.
Finally as a the product of having developed <my style> as a lead guitarist, coming up with lines in real time I figured I'm probably a composer and let's just do that. Actually I was arranging for years and was writing but not thinking of it like that.

I never became one of the legit kids though.

[IncarnateX]

I never became one of the legit kids though.

You are lucky. I never wanted to become one but has problems to this date with my rigid structures and with breaking formalities. They just live their own friggin life in my spine now.

[IncarnateX]

And fwiw: As suggested some pages ago, I think Fux’s lack of explanations when introducing his principles are just due to the conventions of his time. Being the first real textbook in music, he probably had to extract what he himself considered its essence. At least to me (again wih precaution for my modern ears), I have never understood why parallel fifths should be avoided from a perceptual point of view. They sound good in my ears and can especially add to an Asian, middle eastern or ancient mood if this is what you go for in your music.

Edit: okay, I am not going to plaster the tread with modern music youtubes, so I withdraw my example. Back on track.

[jancivil]

another dupe

[jancivil]

I aware of why parallels are avoided (I wholly agree with fmr that harmonic thought vanishes w. parallel fifths) but Bach was well beyond worrying about it I think.

Bach was a rebellion. We should agree to that at this point. However, it does not seem to be Fux’ explicit argument for avioding parallel fifths that it lose harmony. It is simply taken granted in his first rule, which he just states in the beginning and later he says it is hard for singers to deal with (page 33), and as already shown on page 6, it is still a principle to follow as much as possible even in 4 part writing. Thus, avoiding parallel fifths or octaves are not restricted to two voice writings but a general principle defining counter point.

I get it. I think in CPP harmony it tends to be just clunky. However the academic emphasis on covered fifths is extreme. We can find it in Bach. As I said in the other thread, 'Everyone has perped here.'.

I just agree with the general thrust of Fernando's remarks, based in the reality of the perfect fifth acoustically. I think the example of Smoke on the Water (while being nearly reductio ad absurdum to the original context) illustrates that basic remark perfectly. However, I wouldn't take that remark axiomatically.

[jancivil]

I never became one of the legit kids though.

You are lucky. I never wanted to become one but has problems to this date with my rigid structures and with breaking formalities. They just live their own friggin life in my spine now.

Well, I could never extensively or intensively write normal music in normal forms, or be a commercial writer. I don't have the facility. It amounts to a kind of refusal, it's Bartleby and "I prefer not". Like sonata form; I just don't give a shit. If someone presents 'Symphony in B Minor', I better see something to indicate something on the order of irony, a real sign of self-awareness here or it's a total
So while I admire people's chops who can, I would personally find that to be quite some baggage. I can cope with being a rock guitarist pretty well but I don't want to imitate or copy (as a 'grown person'). And I don't want a formal frame which I'm suppose to satisfy with the kind of things it demands.

I paid attention to things growing up. By the time I was 16 I didn't care to do anything but music.
I remember Bob James, whose music I didn't care for at all at the time, a very successful guy in the jazz crossover area (it was some hit TV show's theme where I even heard of him): one day I found an interview with him and found out he used to be involved in the whole other side of jazz ("free jazz" sez the Wiki). And he said doing what he did, becoming a very commercial viable writer, he felt he lost something. That is a significant thing for a young person to see! And I found he was a fantastic musician but eventually he's 'smooth jazz'.
It was theme for Taxi, which I liked well enough but what I found following that, it's too safe, it's cookie cutter. Then I found this was a choice, I mean he's not Kenny G.

Then with exposure to the larger world, I realized that serious composers were explorers, not panderers really at all. Could Varèse have written a happening popular TV theme? Maybe this is a no.

[ChamMusic]

I realized that serious composers were explorers, not panderers really at all. Could Varèse have written a happening popular TV theme? Maybe this is a no.

I hear and understand your point, but it is possible to do both, although I accept that it can be tricky to get the balance right as it can drain your more experimental side if you're not very careful.

In my own tiny, insignificant corner of the musical universe I certainly feel that I create in various quite contrasting genres? Do I have to work to limitations and instructions / expectations in my media work...absolutely! It's still a helluva lot more enjoyable and fulfilling than a lot of jobs! :0)

Morricone did it for nearly 30 years...60s / 70s / 80s...

Gruppo di Improvvisazione di Nuova Consonanza + Film / TV and Pop music.

If Varese had done a little bit of popular composing then he might've been able to drop the piano salesman job which he absolutely hated and helped to lead him into severe depression! :0)

Writing a happening TV Film theme to exact requirements can be more tricky than you might think...especially with a tight deadline involved...

Stravinsky was turned out of Hollywood after he announced that his score for a film would be ready in 6 months! they told him to 'f**k off and get real'! For the amount they were offering him, they wanted it in 4 weeks max! :0)

[jancivil]

I was being coy. I doubt Varèse - or <a Varèse> - would be inclined to remotely care about it in order to even try. I think a person can go far enough outside what the general public consumes as to not be ready or able to conform.

Zappa could do both. But Zappa liked having a budget and a fully state-of-the-art recording studio in his house.
I couldn't make myself continue to be accessible like that. And I started out as a blues-based rock guitarist.

"Writing a happening TV Film theme to exact requirements can be more tricky than you might think..."

Not that I might think; it would be quite beyond me to. But the point to even bringing that in was I was struck by Bob James saying by becoming that musician he'd lost something and then I found that early on he enjoyed doing a "free jazz" project or two. That was what he was speaking to.

As to Igor, can you picture him being a servant to the director of a popular motion picture? And he loved him some money, too.

[tonedef71]

I remember back in college wondering why parallel fifths and octaves were discouraged in my music theory and counterpoint classes. I liked how smooth the perfect intervals sounded, and because I was playing power chords on the electric guitar all the time back then, my ears were so accustomed to hearing them.

These days, my ears are more discerning. The sound of perfect intervals sound hollow compared to non-perfect consonant intervals, such as thirds and sixths. When these hollow sounding perfect fifth and octave intervals occur after parallel movement, it sounds like a voice has dropped out of the harmony (similar to when voices merge to a unison). I think that is why such parallel motion is reserved for those times when it is used for a particular effect (e.g. the doubled voices in Bach's two part invention number eight).

[fmr]

.../... When these hollow sounding perfect fifth and octave intervals occur after parallel movement, it sounds like a voice has dropped out of the harmony (similar to when voices merge to a unison). I think that is why such parallel motion is reserved for those times when it is used for a particular effect (e.g. the doubled voices in Bach's two part invention number eight).

EXACTLY. I already wrote this several times, and even in this thread.

It's not like they avoided 5ths and 8ves just to make the task harder for novices and learners. It's because, for the sake of "voice leading" and polyphony, one needs to always have a discernible number of independent voices going on, and, as you wrote, "When these hollow sounding perfect fifth and octave intervals occur after parallel movement, it sounds like a voice has dropped out of the harmony (similar to when voices merge to a unison)".

If it happens ONCE, the hear can catch that. but if we start doing that several times in parallel, the result is exactly like dropping one voice. Sometimes, we may want that, but we need to be aware of the result, and not get there because we don't know what else to do.