4 part-writing exercise - need evaluation

[fmr]

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.

Man, you are insisting in this nonsense. How many times do I have to say this: FUX RULES ONLY APPLY TO TWO VOICE STRICT COUNTERPOINT. How would you have contrary movement simultaneously in FOUR VOICES? Please post an example.

Besides, counterpoint evolved A LOT since Fux time. You can have parallell notes and still have counterpoint. One thing doesn't conflict with the other. Open your mind. Or else you would not accept counterpoint outside Fux treaty, because parallel movements exist pretty much ANYWHERE.

Now I understand why you don't consider the chorales as counterpoint But you are plainly WRONG.

And FIFTHs and OCTAVES are NOT harmony.

[IncarnateX]

And FIFTHs and OCTAVES are NOT harmony.

A unison is considered a harmonic interval, just like a fifth or a third, but is unique in that it is two identical notes produced together.

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

[IncarnateX]

Nothing contentious here...makes sense to me!

Thanks, mate. Me too and that makes two of us at least. Seems like I will have to settle with that.

[fmr]

And FIFTHs and OCTAVES are NOT harmony.

A unison is considered a harmonic interval, just like a fifth or a third, but is unique in that it is two identical notes produced together.

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

Are you kidding me?

You should start using music examples, and have a critical perspective, instead of posting quotes from Wiki (which sometimes may be wrong, and much more when quoted out of context).

Harmonic intervals is NOT THE SAME as Harrmony. Harmony is about the structural functions of tonality. Any two notes (including the same note played twice) when played simultaneously are an harmonic interval. That has nothing to do with Harmony. Quoting that same article you linked:

"The study of harmony involves chords and their construction and chord progressions and the principles of connection that govern them".

Now, regarding intervals:

An interval can be described as
Vertical or harmonic if the two notes sound simultaneously
Horizontal, linear, or melodic if they sound successively

See the difference? This is Music 101. Shouldn't need to be posting this here.

[IncarnateX]

Dear Fernando
You have spoken against common sense in music theory, not at least the wiki, so many times with appeal to nothing but your own authority, "it is that ", "it is not that", that I can no longer take anything you say for granted as something relevant to the planet I live on and our language of music theory. Further attempt to communicate will likely fail accordingly, so state what you like, but forgive me for not responding in detail.

Best Regards
IX

[fmr]

Dear Fernando
You have spoken against common sense in music theory, not at least the wiki, so many times with appeal to nothing but your own authority, "it is that ", "it is not that", that I can no longer take anything you say for granted as something relevant to the planet I live on and our language of music theory. Further attempt to communicate will likely fail accordingly, so state what you like, but forgive me for not responding in detail.

Best Regards
IX

Do as you wish, but please refrain from posting your "theory" then, especially in a topic where a novice is trying to learn something. You clearly lack the knowledge, and tend to confuse things, more than enlightening them. I have the authority that is given by many years of studying this, and I am not based on Wiki phrases quoted out of context. I don't say I cannot be wrong sometimes, but I usually revise my thoughts before posting them. And mistakes like confusing "Harmony" with "harmonic intervals" is something that only a beginner could do.

If it is against your "common sense music theory", then you need to revise it, and study more.

[IncarnateX]

You are clearly out of your mind: Harmony is build upon movements of harmonic intervals. Harmonic movements include movements of fifth and octaves as well as thirds and sixth as part of chords. Whether YOU would call movements in fiths alone harmony or not does not even violate anything I have said. It is still movements thay are avoided in counterpoint, both for Fux and Palestrina, so you do not even have a case relevant to the topic.

And don’t you tell me what to post with appeal to all your ass pulled shit as if this is gold. It is exactly what it is; ass pulled shit. If you have problems with my posts, report them.

[fmr]

You are clearly out of your mind: Harmony is build upon movements of harmonic intervals. Harmonic movements include movements of fifth and octaves as well as thirds and sixth as part of chords. Whether YOU would call movements in fiths alone harmony or not does not even violate anything I have said. It is still movements thay are avoided in counterpoint, both for Fux and Palestrina, so you do not even have a case relevant to the topic.

And don’t you tell me what to post with appeal to all your ass pulled shit as if this is gold. It is exactly what it is; ass pulled shit. If you have problems with my posts, report them.

[rbarata]

I'm going to be honest now...
During my 52 years I've been in many forums dedicated to many different subjects but this type of discussions only happen in music theory forums.
I don't know why but, whenever someone asks a simple question waiting for a simple answer (sometimes a simple yes or no), most of the time (in a matter of a post or two) he receives a complex answer full of advanced theory that, although related with the thread subject, can be left alone for the moment. Then someone comes along and disagrees, then the argument escalate.
The result is that the original question, although answered (most of the time) is surrounded by a lot of theory arguments that doesn't benefit anyone, especially the thread starter. Imagine how he would feel, especially if it's a beginner or an unexperienced person.

I understand everyone's give their answer with the best of intentions (regardless of its style, more complicated or with just a few words). I also understand there are a lot of different points of view about theory subjects. Sometimes the ones discussing reach the conclusion they are talking about the same. But, think about thread starters and their experience levels. No need to complicate or muddy the waters unnecessarely. Think about it before posting your answers and keep it as simple as possible,

Now, with that in mind, I'll post my analysis of the 2nd phrase...

Intervals between voices (marked in red the questions I’ll ask about)
- M2 and m7: as far as I know, Bach considered them as dissonances. Did he had any particular treatment for them?
- P5-P5: These are consecutive 5ths but since they keep the same tones can be accepted as only one 5th. Am I correct?
- The chord with the arrow: usually, to find the chord, I consider the first quarter-note (in the alto) but in this case it would be something strange (D-A-E-F#). If I conside the 2nd quarter-note then it’s a D Maj triad with a doubled root.
My question: how should I read this? Does it depends on the ears?
- Aug 4th? Maybe a strategy to increase tension to make the resolution more satisfactory?









Function analysis

While in the first phrase Bach used the B harmonic minor, in the second phrase he changed to the natural minor (see the movement and the accidentals of the leading tone in the soprano and alto).
This was also an handy solution because, I think, he modulated to D Maj (if we consider this phrase as the continuity of the first) and then he got back to B min.
The chords heard as being in D Maj are underlined and the pivot chords are marked with a dot.

The return to b minor, as I see it, is by means of the VI (in B) which has a weak Tonic function followed by the ii (weak subdominant) followed by an authentic cadence V-i.
Assuming what I wrote is correct and not a pile of *****, as the portion in D maj is just a few chords, can it be considered a tonicization instead of a modulation?

[fmr]

.../... my analysis of the 2nd phrase...

Intervals between voices (marked in red the questions I’ll ask about)
- M2 and m7: as far as I know, Bach considered them as dissonances. Did he had any particular treatment for them?

Absolutely. Bach usually treated the dissonances carefully, and resolve them almost always according to the rules.

The first is a retard. Note that the E comes from the previous chord, and is "extended into the second chord. Retards usually resolve by descending to the chord note, and that's what happened here, with the E descending into the D (the true note of the chord).

The second note is the seventh of the V7 chord (F#, A#, C#, E). The seventh, according to the rules resolve by descending one degree, and that's what happening here, once again. Note that Bach reaches the seventh of the chord (the E) by using a passing note, but that creates a movement with two parallel seconds between the tenor and the bass (something not very usual, and maybe unacceptable by the conterpoint canons). However, when we play the chorale, this passes almost unnoticeable. Nevertheless, the "rule" is that the seventh should be prepared, by reaching it with a descending movement or (ideally) by having the seventh already in place, as a note from the previous chord.

- P5-P5: These are consecutive 5ths but since they keep the same tones can be accepted as only one 5th. Am I correct?

Yes. When the notes are the same, there is no movement, so, it doesn't count as parallel 5ths or octaves. It's simply an articulation of the same note.

- The chord with the arrow: usually, to find the chord, I consider the first quarter-note (in the alto) but in this case it would be something strange (D-A-E-F#). If I conside the 2nd quarter-note then it’s a D Maj triad with a doubled root.
My question: how should I read this? Does it depends on the ears?
- Aug 4th? Maybe a strategy to increase tension to make the resolution more satisfactory?

Nothing so complicated. Actually, it's very simple. The E of the previous chord is kept, to create tension. It "enters" in the next chord as a retard, "spicing" it, and then resolves into the true note of the chord. Retards, ornates, passing notes, and appogiaturas, were used by the composers to create variety to the music, and usually resolved in the next chord by a one degree movement.

This is another subject that needs some study from you - the different kinds of dissonances, and how they are resolved.

The "foreign" notes became more and more frequent as time passed, and in the romantic period (100-150 years later) also many times left unresolved, or when resolved, the composer often changed the chord at the same time, or twist the listener with unexpected resolutions (resolving in chords that are not the expected ones), keeping the tension on and on.

.../...
Assuming what I wrote is correct and not a pile of *****, as the portion in D maj is just a few chords, can it be considered a tonicization instead of a modulation?

It isn't "a pile of *****". Actually, after reading it, I don't understand why you were so afraid of jump into analysis of Bach. And yes, IMO it is a tonicization, and not a modulation.

[ChamMusic]

The first is a retard.

Agreed...but also known as a suspended note. Sometimes the note might be actually held / suspended over the chord change rather than retriggered. Here that would've been a dotted crotchet E instead of a crotchet E followed by a separate quaver.

IMO it is a tonicization, and not a modulation.

Absolutely! In an old entry in this thread I mentioned this move to D Major and the fact that by the end of the phrase we're back in B minor again. If the phrase's cadence had clearly moved to D major as well then this would be a modulation as such, but here, we get an A# again within the same bar...clearly signalling that the move from B minor to D major was only transitory.

[IncarnateX]

but that creates a movement with two parallel seconds between the tenor and the bass (something not very usual, and maybe unacceptable by the conterpoint canons)

Well, treatment of parallel dissonances in counterpoint is certainly not something I could say is clear to me either, neither with regard to Fux nor Palestrina. Fux' four rules are basically just two:

1. rule: From one perfect consonance to another -> contrary or oblique movement
3. rule: From one imperfect consonance to perfect -> contrary or obligue movement

However, since many of Fux's arguments for doing one thing or another not at least regard how hard the voicing is for singers, I expect that he would reduce the tension of one dissonance before moving on to another and that he would favor oblique and contrary movements in doing so. However, since, e.g. major seconds can achieve different harmonic functions according to which chords they are part of, everything gets more complicated when we move on to e.g. 4 voice counter point (Gradus, page 109). Not even parallel octaves or fifths are without exceptions when we apply more than two voices, but Fux never stated that they were, just that one should follow the principles

so far as possible, for one is sometimes forced to accept a hidden succession of fifths and octaves on account of the requirements of the melody

(Gradus, page 110),

I think this is a good entry to put an end to some of the counterpoint controversy around:

Even "strict" counterpoint is not so strict that it can be applied restlessly to every possible musical context. This is impossible and fortunately masters like Fux and Palestrina were completely aware of that. It is usually the readers of these authors that have problems understanding it, not the authors themselves. To them, rules ARE guidelines, though they state them as rules for pedagogical reasons.

[ChamMusic]

To them, rules ARE guidelines, though they state them as rules for pedagogical reasons.

100%! I've said 'guidelines' for the past 30 years, and so few hear the message! :0)

Maybe it was a mistake on their part to be so 'definite'?

[IncarnateX]

Yes, one should think so. And therefore I would say that the only one who should decide whether parallel seconds are allowed in rbarata's case above is......

(drumroll)

rbarate!

Yeah.

[fmr]

.../... I would say that the only one who should decide whether parallel seconds are allowed in rbarata's case above is......

(drumroll)

rbarate!

Yeah.

Except that it isn't rbarata's piece

But you don't know that. How would you?