4 part voice leading. Relevant to electronic music?

[jancivil]

Is there something rare-looking about V-ii-V? Here's the thing. Chords were a formulation following part-writing. I don't know why you would be starting to form beliefs about the rarity of chord progressions, apparently in order to justify a rule. I don't know why the rule is good; it's from your course, but your course has zero authority for me. You don't know why the rule is good. I never heard of it. I had really good training and I never heard of it. I racked my brain a little, and I don't think assigning eg., ii6/4 in an exercise will have been avoided. It would seem better to make up examples to broaden your chops rather than to discourage a whole thing. And something in the back of my mind said <ii chord, ii six/four, that's a thing>. And rather than write an exercise for you, I was still groggy, I found it in a few seconds.

So. To say that you can't write a ii6/4 is insisting that a cart pull the horse it seems to me.
Part-writing came before chords. Chords were not always the thing. So look at this example, it's exemplary part-writing. The principles of eg., contrary motion don't exist in order to agree with chord ideation or get you out of a problem, it exists qua part-writing. It's 'clean', I don't quite know how to articulate this, it's done because it's beautiful.

[Touch The Universe]

Is there something rare-looking about V-ii-V? Here's the thing. Chords were a formulation following part-writing. I don't know why you would be starting to form beliefs about the rarity of chord progressions, apparently in order to justify a rule. I don't know why the rule is good; it's from your course, but your course has zero authority for me. You don't know why the rule is good. I never heard of it. I had really good training and I never heard of it. I racked my brain a little, and I don't think assigning eg., ii6/4 in an exercise will have been avoided. It would seem better to make up examples to broaden your chops rather than to discourage a whole thing. And something in the back of my mind said <ii chord, ii six/four, that's a thing>. And rather than write an exercise for you, I was still groggy, I found it in a few seconds.

So. To say that you can't write a ii6/4 is insisting that a cart pull the horse it seems to me.
Part-writing came before chords. Chords were not always the thing. So look at this example, it's exemplary part-writing. The principles of eg., contrary motion don't exist in order to agree with chord ideation or get you out of a problem, it exists qua part-writing. It's 'clean', I don't quite know how to articulate this, it's done because it's beautiful.

I'm a little confused by your reply and I can only go by what I've learned in class, I meant any second inversions for secondary triads might be vary rare, especially bach style music, otherwise why are they teaching it this way? I've also looked up with google to try and find a clear answer why they are not used, but found nothing, though I did find some other sites which said never use second inversion. Of course there is nothing rare about the chord in the picture, except it has the second inversion, which to me might only make sense in the maybe rare occasions of using it in a passing 6/4 chord between the root and its first inversion, where in such a passing chord, contrary motion is necessary, and maybe to acheive this the inversion could be used. so the passing chord would be V(root)-ii 6/4(passing chord)-V6(first inversion). then again, i don't think that chord would be the only option to achieve the passing chord.... like I said, I'm a bit confused, luckily i have a class tomorrow and hopefully I can get a satisfactory answer

[jancivil]

Is there something rare-looking about V-ii-V?

I meant any second inversions for secondary triads might be vary rare, especially bach style music, otherwise why are they teaching it this way?

Like I said, you want your course to be right or this rule to make sense where it doesn't. You're finding language to argue it as a point with me, I'm not so interested as that.
NB: your argumentation is circular to 'the rule is a good rule' even as you don't actually know why it's a good rule.

I've been generous, my actual honest reply to 'why are they teaching it this way' should include 'because they don't know any better?'. Good luck with the satisfactory answer.
The answer to 'second inversions of secondary chords, it isn't done?' was provided: 'It is done, right here, working nicely.'.

[Touch The Universe]

Is there something rare-looking about V-ii-V?

I meant any second inversions for secondary triads might be vary rare, especially bach style music, otherwise why are they teaching it this way?

Like I said, you want your course to be right or this rule to make sense where it doesn't. You're finding language to argue it as a point with me, I'm not so interested as that.
NB: your argumentation is circular to 'the rule is a good rule' even as you don't actually know why it's a good rule.

I've been generous, my actual honest reply to 'why are they teaching it this way' should include 'because they don't know any better?'. Good luck with the satisfactory answer.
The answer to 'second inversions of secondary chords, it isn't done?' was provided: 'It is done, right here, working nicely.'.

I don't want anything and I'm not really arguing for or against it I've only started learning secondary triads a week or two ago and haven't really developed any inclinations one way or the other to write them in my music. Never said it was a good rule in the least but just racking my brain for a few minutes I came up with a few ideas on why already in my previous post's which you seem to be ignoring. The most obvious reason why they are teaching it this way because it makes for smoother voice leading, there is no way around that point. Every rule I've learned so far is the same, it makes smoother voice leading. I don't really want to argue with you though since I'm more than grateful to you because you are the one helping me out most with this, so I say we agree to disagree. I couldn't ask the teacher last time since we were having a test the whole period that day but I'll shoot her an email now and leave her reply in case you are interested.

[Gamma-UT]

I think the problem is that the course is applying a rule that appears in some textbooks, but which normally has some extra context. The restriction on second inversion secondary triads is, as far as I can tell, to avoid using them on strongly accented beats as it can seem to signal a key modulation.

The course writer seems to have made it a blanket rule and will probably (at least hopefully) reverse it later on in the course when key changes come up. I don't think it's a helpful way to construct a course but it seems the only sensible explanation.

[jancivil]

I'm not really arguing for or against it

Never said it was a good rule in the least but just racking my brain for a few minutes I came up with a few ideas on why already in my previous post's which you seem to be ignoring. The most obvious reason why they are teaching it this way because it makes for smoother voice leading, there is no way around that point.

No, here you are arguing with me some more again. Now, this rule somehow is good, in that it, through itself, guarantees 'smoother' voice leading. That has not been demonstrated, we don't know at all why that works. In fact, what was demonstrated is a 6/4 working smoothly in a stepwise bass line.

So. I'm going to address the rest of the world in comments rather than focus on your problem, it needs sorting because your assertion there is a nonsense. As to her answer, thanks but I'm good.

second inversion secondary triads on strongly accented beats can seem to signal a key modulation.

That's a good use for it, but making rules in the abstract about inversions is insisting the cart pull the horse. As stated, it was 'you never do this'. Implication being, because they are secondary chords. Who knew?

Inversions have to do with a bass line. THAT is the practice this whole area of harmonic writing is based in, part_writing.
So there, V, ii6/4, V6 is F, G, A in the bass with the rest of the voices which make up those harmonies. That example is really the type of writing we want as a model, this isn't some rarity. It makes perfect sense in this_musical_idea. Rules qua rules? We saw an outline for a course study with no reasons for rules. Looked dodgy to me.

I racked my brain trying to get at why. I had some thoughts, one of them is about 6/4 as setting up a type of cadence, as Gamma brought in. IE: ii6/4 is a good device for setting up a modulation via V of ii, to ii.
It's been ~forty years since this was a focus for me, but I kind of vaguely had this bug telling me ii6/4 was 'usual', I mean besides the above example. And in around three seconds on google, I had by now formulated the right keywords, I found an image exactly demonstrating it. As a rule, in my estimation, it's now out the window.

[Tjivory]

It seems we have skipped the chapter that deals with harmonization even though I was looking forward to learning that bit since I come across quite a few times that I'd like to build melodies around vocals. Generally speaking, is 4-part writing sorta like harmonizing in a way? Say you are given a melody for the bass line and roman numerals under it to construct the other 3 voices, is this harmonization? I'd like to understand it more fully but there is surprisingly little information about it on youtube-- which is my first go to source for learning. Maybe there is a more common synonym for harmonization?

[jancivil]

Yes, '4-part writing', as described, is harmonization. If there is a roman number and the bass is figured, those stand for harmonies.

'the bass is figured' by the sign '6' or '6/4' or '4/2' etc next to the roman number.
EG: '6' means that the bass is figured a sixth below the root of the chord. '6/4' indicates that the bass is a fourth below the root (the '6' there inclusive of the bass' relationship with the third. IE: '6' is an abbreviation for 6/3.). '4/2' for the bass a second below the root/a fourth below the third. {'5/3' = root position.}

So the principles are about making 'harmonization' coherent as a horizontal matter - lines, writing of parts - in agreement with the vertical/harmonies.

[dewgong]

https://houndedeyre.bandcamp.com/releases

This is an album ive just completed. The depth and presence is lost in the mp3 conversion unfortunately but the original downloads are freely available. Voice leading is central to my technique so I thought it might be relevant. It'd be great to hear criticism and/or commendations

[Touch The Universe]

Hey, I just wanted to share a track I made playing the melodies I learned about in the theory class. I actually played most of these melodies on the keyboard (which is a first for me -- a learning beginner) after I wrote them on the staff, although, I did tweak a few melodies here and there. I used the 4 part voice leading in a lot of the parts. The track probably sounds a little bach-ish maybe too Cheers

https://soundcloud.com/majestic_dawn/tj ... -moonlight

[elnn]

Tritones are best as passing tones

You're ruining it for me : ((

Debussy would also not agree with you. Staunchly. And with a firehose.