4 part voice leading. Relevant to electronic music?

[dewgong]

Here's my fave anecdote to 'the rules': I got dinged - the only thing I was taken points off for, and despite his note that 'It sounds great' - for hidden fifths in the resolution of a German Sixth in my final for Honors Music Theory at CCM.
Turns out JS Bach did that move all the time. It's next-to-impossible to follow that rule. It seemed designed to ensure no one got 100 on the test. It's bullshit and it's anal.

Debussy managed to make parallel fifths sound amazing. Then Messiaen came along and continued the tradition. Im not sure what the OP wants, he seems determined to learn counterpoint which is great but why start a thread asking a question if you're going to make a concerted effort to ignore all the answers?

[Gamma-UT]

Here's my fave anecdote to 'the rules': I got dinged - the only thing I was taken points off for, and despite his note that 'It sounds great' - for hidden fifths in the resolution of a German Sixth in my final for Honors Music Theory at CCM.
Turns out JS Bach did that move all the time. It's next-to-impossible to follow that rule. It seemed designed to ensure no one got 100 on the test. It's bullshit and it's anal.

I believe the point of that kind of test is simply to determine how well the student can spot the pitfalls of counterpoint, not to to generate great voice leading. It works on the basis that when you use parallel or hidden fifths in 'real' work, you have a good idea of why you're doing it - i.e., it sounds great. You're really only learning a form of pattern recognition in traditional four-voice counterpoint in the same way Hanon teaches some form of muscle memory.

Even Palestrina, who is effectively responsible for the more austere treatment of counterpart and is supposedly the template for this kind of voice leading (after his somewhat unwelcome cleanup of church plainsong) broke the rules much of the time in his own work. Authors like Jeppesen say "well, that's Palestrina's genius".

[gnosis123]

You're really only learning a form of pattern recognition in traditional four-voice counterpoint in the same way Hanon teaches some form of muscle memory.

Yes - how to operate under a set of constraints. The flip side is Seeger's 'dissonant counterpoint', where the traditional rules are explicitly prohibited.

These are all tools, as long as you don't become a slave to them. The more you have in your toolbox, the wider your perception and richer your palette.

[jancivil]

No, he was interested in generating a piece of music that we would fulfill in the time alotted. Both of my harmony teachers were interested in the most musical result.
He was kind of being a dick IMO. We knew our shit to be in that class, and I saw there was no choice but to break that rule. Later, in isolation I noticed more than one writer mention that specific thing, JS Bach/hidden fifths/German sixth.

His tests were motherfuckers like that, the harmonic language was late to post-Wagner by third trimester.

[Gamma-UT]

No, he was interested in generating a piece of music that we would fulfill in the time alotted. Both of my harmony teachers were interested in the most musical result.
He was kind of being a dick IMO. We knew our shit to be in that class, and I saw there was no choice but to break that rule. Later, in isolation I noticed more than one writer mention that specific thing, JS Bach/hidden fifths/German sixth.

His tests were motherfuckers like that, the harmonic language was late to post-Wagner by third trimester.

Aah, OK. I wrongly assumed it was a "here's a cantus firmus, go make some counterpoint" test.

You have to wonder why people like that go into teaching - or maybe he did too.

[jancivil]

He was an excellent teacher, but I think this kind of gig can sour you in certain ways. I was kind of taken aback by the dissonance of 'sounds great but I have to take off four points', I felt I had done such top work (I was pushing for a scholarship; 4% of the grade of the test is this one move?). I mean the solution I wrote can't be faulted as music but it's wrong. I could never cut a test like that today or even close. Intense times. I took a substantial hit of acid the night before.

[Touch The Universe]

These rules you are receiving with no question illustrates why someone might question the relevance to some music; in the OP 'electronic music'.
Why is second-inversion illegal in a ii, iii, vi, or vii chord, per se? I have no memory at all of this being taught; I had to google it. I found everything from 'you may not' do it, to 'it is uncommon to', to "The second inversion of secondary Triads should be doubled exactly the same as the second inversion of principal Triads".
Some of the statements I found amidst some singularly badly formed 'theory' texts.

What is the musical reason given? Is there any?
IE: here's a principle; in a diminished triad, that diminished fifth might have a tendency, to typically want to move a certain way in resolution. So doubling according to this preference would force parallel octaves. But this is just some lingo, absent the two harmonies you're dealing with in context of some music.

But now, in the context of your receiving this as a true statement about all of the 'secondary' triads, per se: Is this principle true of a major or minor triad?

What are the chords, what is the writing you're doing? I don't think an exercise to see if you can follow a bunch of rules is the best exercise. I'm reluctant to say much with no actual part-writing before me. I should reinforce 'if you don't understand the reasoning, you can't really exploit it'. You could prove apt at following someone's received statement of rules and in doing so make some singularly bad music.

As to determining the quality of ii, in minor ii is a diminished triad until minor is the melodic minor form. So yeah, eg., in C minor a natural sign before A is your first clue.
Eventually you should come to recognize basic chord quality more readily.

Thanks for your reply jan civil. Believe me, I don't take all these instructions as rules that can't be broken, but for the purposes of passing the class, I just want to atleast understand how they are teaching it before I question everything. While experimenting with all these chords in question, I almost always alter some notes in the chord which I feel sound better so by no means and I limiting myself to not breaking the rules. They are guidelines.

As it is being taught in class, yes, it says don't use second inversions for secondary triads for both minor and major triads. Anything diminished or augmented we are instructed to double the bass the note since it would be 1st inversion (excluding the 5th since that'd be the leading tone). I think the reason why was brought up but I don't remember. I'd only assume it would make better voice leading for the bach style of music. Would it be the case that instead of using second inversion of secondary triads you might as well just use primary triads or simple 1st inversion of secondary triads where you then wouldn't have to double the bass note? Using second inversions you'd have to double the bass note and when it comes to writing triads with roots a 3rd apart, it might be a problem since you'd then need to keep two common tones if possible, while also being sure to double the bass note of the second inversions, maybe a case would come up where the third of the chord would note be possible to add without breaking the rules or what not. I'll ask the teacher again and let you know her reply.

[Touch The Universe]

If you guys want to take a look at the course handout I got about secondary triads you can see here:

ntroduction to Secondary Triads

Primary Triads: I, IV, V (i, iv, V) Secondary Triads: supertonic, mediant, subtonic, and leading tone

Secondary triads can be major, minor, augmented, or diminished depending upon the type of scale and scale degree. Review page 69 for triad qualities.

The chart on page 141 explains what position the secondary triads appear in the specified scale as well as the preferred doubling rules.

Secondary triads are never used in 2nd inversion

In minor keys supertonic (2) is not used in root position and rarely used in 1st inversion

In major and minor triads follow same doubling procedures as with primary triads

*Roots 4th or 5th apart, keep common tone and move remaining upper voices stepwise to nearest new chord tone. If you cannot keep a common tone (due to poor voice-leading) move all three upper voices in the same direction to the next triad. If this is done correctly, the roots will be doubled.

*Roots a 3rd apart keep both of the present common tones and move the other upper voice stepwise to nearest new chord tone.

*Roots a 2nd apart have no common tone. Upper voices move in contrary motion to the bass. If done correctly, the roots will be doubled. The only exception is V-VI- double the 3rd of VI.

Diminished and Augmented triads only occur in 1st inversion and the 3rd of the triad is the only possible doubling.

Harmonic movement can be STRONG, NEUTRAL, or WEAK.

Strongest movement occurs when roots are 4th or 5th apart. See page 142 (I-iii-vi-ii6-V-I)

Roots a 3rd apart are weak progressions because there are two common tones. In this case, keep both common tones and move other pitches to nearest new chord tone.

Chords with roots a 2nd apart are not as strong as 4th or 5th apart, but are much stronger than those a 3rd apart. No common tone exists and creates an impression of harmonic motion. However, ascending chords a 2nd apart are considered stronger than descending.

*See graph on page 146 for progressive/retrogressive harmonic motion. This also demonstrates the relationships between the chords.

Cadences using secondary triads:

Deceptive cadence is made up of V-vi or V-VI. The natural tendency is for the V to go to I so it is considered deceptive for V-go to vi. This avoids the finality of a cadence, thus, prolonging the phrase.

vii°6-I has a dominant function and is a weak form of an authentic cadence.

This information should be used in conjunction with your textbooks and previous voice-leading handouts. It is recommended to review these handouts regularly and keep them nearby when completing homework examples.

*The information found in this handout comes from Benward’s Music in Theory and Practice McGraw-Hill Higher Education and from The Practice of Harmony 5th Edition by Peter Spencer

[Touch The Universe]

You can hear a track I made quickly while experimenting with voice leading (primary triads) here. I deviated from the rules quite a bit to prove case in point. It's not the best mix though, but nearly placed fifth in the osc competition. Jan, I'd love to hear a song from you. Cheers

https://soundcloud.com/majestic_dawn/tj ... -bare-feet

[dewgong]

You can hear a track I made quickly while experimenting with voice leading (primary triads) here. I deviated from the rules quite a bit to prove case in point. It's not the best mix though, but nearly placed fifth in the osc competition. Jan, I'd love to hear a song from you. Cheers

https://soundcloud.com/majestic_dawn/tj ... -bare-feet

Thats rather interesting. Youve managed to pull it off convincingly. The counterpoint isnt obtrusive at all, it really complements the arrangement. I like how you've been really fluid with your application too. I dont detect any rigid formalism. It felt a little squashed initially but I quite liked the ambience towards the end. It has a lovely hollow sort of sound that reminds me of a guitar cabinet or hardware reverb

Any form of monophonic electronic music would probably benefit from good voice leading.

[Touch The Universe]

You can hear a track I made quickly while experimenting with voice leading (primary triads) here. I deviated from the rules quite a bit to prove case in point. It's not the best mix though, but nearly placed fifth in the osc competition. Jan, I'd love to hear a song from you. Cheers

https://soundcloud.com/majestic_dawn/tj ... -bare-feet

Thats rather interesting. Youve managed to pull it off convincingly. The counterpoint isnt obtrusive at all, it really complements the arrangement. I like how you've been really fluid with your application too. I dont detect any rigid formalism. It felt a little squashed initially but I quite liked the ambience towards the end. It has a lovely hollow sort of sound that reminds me of a guitar cabinet or hardware reverb

Any form of monophonic electronic music would probably benefit from good voice leading.

Thanks a lot dewgong Wow, was very surprised to hear your comments and glad you liked it. I was a little hesitant to post at first since it's not the best mix and was half expecting some harsh constructive criticism since its the theory forum. I'm very glad you liked it, it was made using only the eclipsis synth, which was a little struggle to find good bass and drums sounds that I was happy with. If I remember correctly, I layed out some chords using only primary triads, then added whatever notes I thought sounded good, whether it follows the rules I learned or not. I also simply arpeggiated the chords I used a lot while also insert new notes. Again, glad to hear your thoughts coming from a music theory perspective. Cheers

[Touch The Universe]

I also have another question, would any sevenths in secondary triads always be diminished in first inversion. Is there simply no vii?

[jancivil]

What is the musical reason given? Is there any?

I just want to understand how they are teaching it before I question everything.

As it is being taught in class, yes, it says don't use second inversions for secondary triads for both minor and major triads. I think the reason why was brought up but I don't remember. I'd only assume it would make better voice leading for the bach style of music. Would it be the case that instead of using second inversion of secondary triads you might as well just use primary triads or simple 1st inversion of secondary triads where you then wouldn't have to double the bass note?

Not saying 'question everything' but I don't know why 'don't use 2nd inv. for major or minor triads' is meaningful in itself. What you have here is you would run into this other rule in chords a step apart & "no common tones". That's specific, I don't extrapolate a general rule from it, in case I'm not being clear enough.
I'm kind of fuzzy in the head generally but I feel kind of sure I never in my life heard of that "don't". But, you know my very first harmony/part-writing course had us using seventh chords almost right away. The first course I had, he was teaching a type of musicianship as opposed to abstractions, so we had tunes or bass lines to come up with good [and stylistic, obeying the typical restrictions] parts to... everything has a context. We moved forward nicely. I think from that look I would not get on well with the type of course you're in. I consider myself fortunate.

But the question I snipped from your reply is illustrative of this cart-pulling-the-horse type of modus operandi I'm questioning. If the bass part gives you a situation where the better writing gives you a harmony where the fifth happens in the bass, these 'rules' are purely obstacles. I don't know why doubling the bass note in them is bad, in itself, for one thing. If the style is basically JS Bach, he loved him some bass lines.
So I would need to see the problem, I'm drawing a blank pondering it as an abstraction anyway. It would be the case when it is, I don't know before I see a case.

Here is an example of my more conventional writing. Go to ~1:04 for the section. (The first part is some other business which doesn't apply.)



There I just overdubbed four parts and decorated it a bit. I mean that's by ear, albeit I have internalized certain things. I write linearly, I didn't have chord figures to care about. However I do believe in strict part-writing from a figured bass as a discipline; my experience again was writing to a melody and/or a bass line with the figured bass given below it.

But that's our clean part-writing in a non-academic or -classical thing.

[jancivil]

I'm feeling particularly brain-injured today... but, I thought about it a minute, and my thinking went to use situations for ii6/4.

I found a picture for it:



It's actually quite typical. Yeah, as a rule "no second inversion secondary triads" is out the window afaic.

[Touch The Universe]

I'm feeling particularly brain-injured today... but, I thought about it a minute, and my thinking went to use situations for ii6/4.

I found a picture for it:



It's actually quite typical. Yeah, as a rule "no second inversion secondary triads" is out the window afaic.

That situation makes more sense because it's used as passing cadential between the V chords so if fits nicely for upward motion in the bass while having downward motion in the upper voices. I will look more into it as why the book is telling me not do it and I don't really have a clear answer. But from what I can see so far, it would be used very rarely.