4 part-writing exercise - need evaluation

Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

jancivil wrote: Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:33 pmHowever the academic emphasis on covered fifths is extreme.
Missed this one but no shit:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecutive_fifths

However, when counterpoint species are derived from Palestrina style polyphony, any avoidance of parallel movements of any kind for longer periods should make sense, e.g. see these species, which are more complex than Fux’

http://www.ars-nova.com/musicatouch/act ... trina.html

We had similar species derived from Knud Jeppesen, which is also one of the sources to the species above apart from Fux whose basics are incorporated too. In all, I think it is fair to say that Fux brought the basics of counterpoint into tonal music and was not aiming for same level of polyphony as Palestrina. The notion that avoiding parallel fifths is to save the individuality of voices like the Wiki article claims is not a reason Fux states and can obviously not be a logical reason either if you just harmonize to support one main melody, e.g. Fux had rules for treating perfect and imperfect harmonies, but an imperfect harmony is one that miss any of the members, octave, third, or fifth and not not just the third (Page 32-33) so he does not consider a chord consisting of octave and fifth one that loses harmonics or individual content more than any other imperfect harmony. Further, he accepts a triad of octave and fifth as ending chord if you are in minor, because he does not see a minor chord as conclusive and changing the chord to major instead will change its mode (page 80). In choral harmonization we had to avoid parallel fifths as well combined with rules such as always taking the shortest route to another chord allowed by the melody and this rule is certainly not individuality saving. It seemed quite restrictive to me whereas saving individuality of voices makes sense in modal/polyphonic counterpoint.

Post

I didn't mean parallel fifths which you euro people are calling 'consecutive', I mean covered, ie.,' hidden' or the 'direct' (which makes no sense really) fifths.

It was either this thread or its twin where I showed JS Bach perpetrating the crime.

Post

Sure, back in the day everybody was made to take Fux, eg., Mozart.

I did not and I never had any particular motivation to write like Palestrina. Or reside in academia past my two years.
I did do an extreme amount of part-writing in the CPP style, from JS Bach period to late romantic. Fux is demonstrably not that, whether or not some of it, in the beginnings of the paradigm, was a basis for the thinking.

"The notion that avoiding parallel fifths is to save the individuality of voices like the Wiki article claims is not a reason Fux states and can obviously not be a logical reason either..."

I think the logic was shown, I agree with it and I never read that Wiki, or had Species or looked very long at Fux.
"... if you just harmonize to support one main melody, e.g. Fux had rules..."

The example in extremis, Smoke On the Water just doubles the riff at the fifth. I think if one were to state this is 'voicing' the riff that will be erroneous. So this reduced-to-the-absurd example illustrates the danger of parallel fifths in part-writing in the limit of 4-part. (& there tend to be further ramifications.) We surely agree that, if beyond a point you're not doing more than doubling a part at an octave or the P5 you're not doing proper part-writing in the CPP modi operandi.

My reasoning, which I'm certain I have given, is that the P5 is acoustically an early factor when a note has enough energy to produce it, in effect it's there so it does not have the effect of say sixths or thirds in parallel. Therefore P5s in 4-part writing (forget Fux for a moment) runs the risk of making 4-parts into 3 parts in effect. I think this is totally logical.

Post

jancivil wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:59 pm I didn't mean parallel fifths which you euro people are calling 'consecutive', I mean covered, ie.,' hidden' or the 'direct' (which makes no sense really) fifths.

It was either this thread or its twin where I showed JS Bach perpetrating the crime.
Yes, but avoiding covered or hidden fifths is a subrule to the avoidance of unhidden parallel fifths to Fux, so I think it still applies. Hidden fifths, e.g. Mozartz’ fifths, are also covered by the wiki article on consecutive fifths. Hidden fifths arise under oblique motion like Mozartz’ fifth, while unhidden are movements of both tonic and fifth on the same beat.

Post

jancivil wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:06 pmMy reasoning, which I'm certain I have given, is that the P5 is acoustically an early factor when a note has enough energy to produce it, in effect it's there so it does not have the effect of say sixths or thirds in parallel. Therefore P5s in 4-part writing (forget Fux for a moment) runs the risk of making 4-parts into 3 parts in effect. I think this is totally logical.
Yes it is quite logical and you are not the only one who has put this thesis forward, authors/students of counterpoint as well. All I can say is that Fux didn’t tell them. And it rings true to some extent for in isolation the fifth or octave is not much of a harmonic signifier. This pureness of perfect consonances has been said to turn two voices into one and thus that a chord may lose harmonic content if parallel fifths or octaves are allowed. However, calling this a concern for the individuality of voices (not that I accuse you of that, I know you are talking within CPP) is somewhat misleading for the case is really not about individuality of voices in terms of polyphony but their balance in obtaining perfect harmonical movements. Thus it is about how the voices are balanced in chords and not about how we can break free from chord structures all together by going modal and polyphonical rather than tonal. In other words I think these authors may conflate the pre Fux notion of individuality of voices as in polyphonic counterpoint with that of the post Fux notion of balanced harmonic content. The latter is definitely post Palestrina since his notion of individuality of voices obviously refers to polyphonic interaction and not chord balance. So basically we are really offered two explanations to avoid fifths, one concerning the issue of polyphony, the other the harmonic content. However, they are not really that incompatible explanations and both of them could make sense in tonal counterpoint but not so much in modal counterpoint, where polyphony is the goal.
Last edited by IncarnateX on Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:43 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Post

jancivil wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:06 pmor looked very long at Fux.
Tbh, before these counterpoint threads, my knowledge about counterpoint was based on Knud Jeppesen’s treatment of both Palestrina and Fux. We only read the first pages of Gradus concerning the species in two part writings to get the basics. However to avoid the polemics of the first thread, where a drunken maestro entered with ad hominem attacks, strawmens, misinterpretations and accusations of misinformation (not referring to Fernando here), I chose to consult the whole work to confirm or modify my second hand knowledge about Fux, so I could argue with direct references to Gradus to avoid further doubt about my axioms (Fux is the topic with regard to the OP after all and not Palestrina). However, I do find him very boring compared to Knud Jeppesen/Palestrina. His best contribution to modern polyphony, modal or tonal, is his exploration of contrary and oblique motion all together, imo, not his paranoid attitude toward parallel fifths. That attitude went into CPP in tonal music on a wide scale somehow. Needless to say that contrary and obligue motions are the technical core of polyphony and that polyphony does not magically appear just because you avoid those @#&*=%”* pure consonances.
Last edited by IncarnateX on Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post

IncarnateX wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:44 amThus it is about how the voices are balanced in chords and not about how we can breake free from chord structures all together by going modal and polyphonical rather than tonal. In other words I think these authors may conflate the pre Fux notion of individuality of voices as in polyphonic counterpoint with that of the post Fux notion of balanced harmonic content. The latter is definitely post Palestrina since his notion of individuality of voices obviously refers polyphonic interaction of voices and not chord balance. So basically we are really offered two explanations to avoid fifths, one concerning the issue of polyphony, the other the harmonic content. However, they are not really that incompatible explanations and both of them could make sense in tonal counterpoint but not so much in modal counterpoint, where polyphony is the goal.
Agreed.

It wouldn't mean the same problem in eg., Palestrina, the goal is not at all the same. Palestrina is quite static compared to music on-the-move harmonically and the 'perfect' or open consonances are part of the style.

So if anyone is doing that, conflating the two it strikes me as mistaken. I'm familiar with Palestrina (albeit not at all from school, where all of the modal polyphony was a total blur, received via the one class which was a snorer) Fux notwithstanding.


I simply decided to be free of 'chord names' in free writing, from the start. I was born in the mid-20th century, and I had it quite well-modeled to say the least.
If I was ever going to try to be a musician for all seasons, I may have benefited from things I chose to refuse, but I wasn't about that.

Post

jancivil wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:02 amPalestrina is quite static compared to music on-the-move harmonically
Yup. Or at least the dynamics in the music are rather reversed. This “drone-y” effect is exactly the price you will have to pay if you give up chord movements and go modal extreme instead a la P. Your perception is fully compatible with theory here.

Post

To be fair to the post Fux counterpoint students, I thought an example of tonal counterpoint at its best would do too. However, since tonal polyphony is just about everywhere in classical music beyond Fux, any example seems arbitrary and almost equally illustrative. Yet, I chose this one because it is beautiful and it starts with strict harmonization to be followed by second voices breaking free from the main theme, though still being supportive of it. So there are counterpoint and polyphony in play, all right, but we are pretty far from the goals of Palestrina here. And of course, you all know this one already but pay attention to the second voices instead of being seduced by the main theme then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCHREyE5GzQ
Last edited by IncarnateX on Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

IncarnateX wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:52 pm And of course, you all know this one already but pay attention to the second voices instead of being seduced by the main theme then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCHREyE5GzQ
This is one of my favorite examples. I use it all the time. Not only because it is beatiful, but because it is such a clear and evident example of tonal "counterpoint", and an example of why we (musicians and composers to be) shouldn't be afraid of that word but study that part very carefully and attentively.

Like the example you posted of Mozart Requiem. How a very simple harmony (and this could be a good lesson for all the people here always talking about "chord progressions") can turn into such a beautiful piece of music, by means of a careful voice leading and orchestration.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

Glad to read that this is a core example of tonal counterpoint to other than me. I thought that this example would appeal to you, Jan and cham. You are obviously romantics (maybe a little baroque too) and move much faster than me when people ask about this period. I am stuck in 1600th century polyphony, so theoretically I am a couple of centuries behind but I can still enjoy the cream of baroque and romanticism

Post

Cannot hold this back, but now that we should have clarified the mystery of avoidance of parallel perfect consonances in counterpoint as far as enabled, and I took time to read whole Gradus just for this purpose, plz allow me to screw Fux a little at the end of the day. Here, a Gregorian chant. Warning: Incoming parallel fifths at 0.43.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK5AohCMX0U

Post

gonna name my next track Mystery of Avoidance

Post

Suggested narrative:

Order (pre counterpoint threads) - > divison (pre Fuxs versus post Fuxs - > chaos/war/demolition -> peace negations -> break down of negotiations -> more war-> voice of God (counterpoint youtubes) -> communication -> peace and unity (Gregorian praise of God in unison and perfect fifths)

Can you be the bard and tell the tale?

Meanwhile I tell old Joseph to get his slippers and get the F back in his tomb.

Post

I've already blown the planet to bits going in.

Post Reply

Return to “Music Theory”