Little free counterpoint quiz

[Quijote]

Oh dear, such irate responses from you. I get that sometimes in class, mainly the ones who are about 18 or 19. Never expected that from you, though. I'll deal with your points later.

[Chris]

Oh dear, such irate responses from you. I get that sometimes in class, mainly the ones who are about 18 or 19. Never expected that from you, though. I'll deal with your points later.

You should have seen me all throughout school! A terror to my teachers, I was! But only the ones for whom I had the most affection, or else what fun would it be? There is still an incident that my old Spanish teacher recalls to this day, regarding use of the passive voice. It culminated in her suggesting I just give the lecture myself, and I took her up on it!

[Peter]

Oh dear, such irate responses from you. I get that sometimes in class, mainly the ones who are about 18 or 19. Never expected that from you, though. I'll deal with your points later.

Well we've attempted it by the rules, but how about giving us a Schoenbergian or Cageian version? Chris had a go!

Actually I suggest repeating Gb throughout, except for the last note changed to F#!

[Quijote]

1. Why is this incorrectly resolved? It breaks my heart to know this is not allowed under the uncodified list of rules of of CPC

According to common practice harmony and CPC, the seventh should resolve down a step to the third of the next chord. Your resolution (D) is over the root G. Make a note of that (for building your own list).

2. What's the deal with this? The e natural serves its function in the C chord and the e flat serves its function in the following F chord.

The harmonic implication in this passage is F major, and the E-flat is unstable ('foreign') in that context.

3. I knew you would hate this, and I put it in there just to stick it to the man! The man being you, in this case.

That'll earn you bonus points, well done.

4. What's with these comments on my clashing 2nds? The function is just to create an interesting dissonance on an off beat that is immediately released on the next beat. Surely that can't be unacceptable!?

Oh, it's not a 'personal' problem, but yours is a flaw of CPC / CPH, where dissonances should have a function. We could take you clashing A/G as an implied V7 in D minor (not really though, because the harmonic context at this point is F major), but even there it is not resolved correctly, ergo, the G (being the 7th) would fall a step to the third of the next chord (i.e. F, as it does in the exercise) but the upper A should therefore leap to the root (D). Yours does no such thing, and is therefore an uninteresting (and faulty) dissonance in the given idiom.

5. How can the tonality possibly be unclear? It goes from a straight F7 arpeggio to a clear E major.

No, it is at odds with the harmonic context (F major, not B-flat major). At a push, we could re-interpret your F/E-flat as an implied Augmented sixth, but even that does not resolve correctly.

6. An unfortunate byproduct of sticking it to the man.
7.This was another attempt to infuriate you, as I was certain this would be unacceptable for some reason. But you liked it? Do you realize what this means? It means I actually failed at failing

So you tried to write a mistake intentionally? To infuriate me? Well, to help you with your list, you can add that with that A/D# you've a nice implied V7 (B-D#-F#A) that resolves correctly - the D# rising to the new tonic, the 7th (A) dropping a step onto the 3rd of the chord.

So, whilst there are still problems in the CPC (and I suspect there might be in your CPH, we'll see that later) you're beginning to see how the mechanics of the common practice idiom work. After a couple of years with me I might just let you deputize for me in one of my classes.
Regards,
J.G. Albrechtsberger

[Quijote]

Well we've attempted it by the rules, but how about giving us a Schoenbergian or Cageian version? Chris had a go!

First we must learn to walk before attempting to run.

[Quijote]

As to 'lists' : well, all the above points (and many, many more) are indeed listed / codified in reliable harmony and counterpoint manuals. You just need to obtain a copy, open it, and start reading. I have no idea, but maybe they are even available in Kindle format or whatever.

[Quijote]

Maybe time now to try a 4-part harmonization exercise in the Bach idiom.
The attached PDF gives a short chorale extract. Please add the Alto, Tenor and Bass "in the style of" JSB.

[Peter]

First we must learn to walk before attempting to run.

Ah that's a little unfair, I only made a slight slip down to lack of effort and attention - won't you let me have my car horn tuned to Gb throughout the exercise? That should ensure some running!

[Chris]

According to common practice harmony and CPC, the seventh should resolve down a step to the third of the next chord. Your resolution (D) is over the root G. Make a note of that (for building your own list).

I'm afraid I don't see what you mean. I don't even see what the 7th is you are talking about. By "7th" I thought you were referring to the D natural being the minor seventh of the chord at that point (E major). But that does resolve down a step to the third of the next chord (C natural in A minor). So the only other thing I can think of is that you mean the interval between the F-sharp on the bottom line and the E natural on the top line. But surely we aren't considering that as establishing a new chord? I saw it as just some passing tones on the off beat that create a little dissonance on the way to the next chord, A minor. And since they aren't on the beat and I didn't jump to them or from them, as you pointed out in my working of the first exercise, I didn't think this could be wrong.

The harmonic implication in this passage is F major, and the E-flat is unstable ('foreign') in that context.

OK, but what does that have to do with a false relation between E natural and E-flat? The E natural is right at home in its chord (as the third of C major) and the E-flat is the minor seventh in F7. Whether I should have used the minor seventh there at all is one thing, but I don't see why it causes a conflict with the earlier E natural, as we've clearly moved on to a completely different chord at this point.

Oh, it's not a 'personal' problem, but yours is a flaw of CPC / CPH, where dissonances should have a function. We could take you clashing A/G as an implied V7 in D minor (not really though, because the harmonic context at this point is F major), but even there it is not resolved correctly, ergo, the G (being the 7th) would fall a step to the third of the next chord (i.e. F, as it does in the exercise) but the upper A should therefore leap to the root (D). Yours does no such thing, and is therefore an uninteresting (and faulty) dissonance in the given idiom.

Do any two overlapping notes have to be treated as if they were implying a chord in themselves? I thought it would be enough to say that the overall chord at this point is F major, so there is some freedom in the off beats and second halves of beats to just do whatever is needed to make the two melodies interesting in themselves, and maybe create a little dissonance for variety. I certainly didn't think using the third of the chord could ever possibly be wrong here, since it serves to reenforce the chord - unless it would create a unison or octave, which I would see as a problem here.

If every single combination of notes that overlap has to be taken as an implied chord, it seems incredibly limiting, and I feel like it wouldn't be that hard to create a cantus firmus for which there is no possible way to add a second line that keeps to the rules of CPC.

No, it is at odds with the harmonic context (F major, not B-flat major). At a push, we could re-interpret your F/E-flat as an implied Augmented sixth, but even that does not resolve correctly.

Why not? It seems to lead you right home to the E, the root of the next chord. This was a difficult note to decide on. What if I had used F natural here instead? I considered it, but then it made an unpleasant octave with the lower part, so I didn't want to do that. I knew the E-flat to G-sharp would be a problem, but I saw no other solution for getting to the G-sharp, so I just went with it despite knowing you would disapprove. I believe I even said, "Take that, Quijote!" aloud as I put it in!

So you tried to write a mistake intentionally? To infuriate me?

It was already a lost cause because of the E-flat, and I hadn't had time to read any of your books, so I still had no idea what the list of rules was I was supposed to be following, so I thought I'd stick in an obvious problem on the second note just to hammer home my defiance. Little did I know this was acceptable. I expected you to tell me that it should have been a C natural. But that was so boring-sounding that I couldn't bear to do it!

So, whilst there are still problems in the CPC (and I suspect there might be in your CPH, we'll see that later) you're beginning to see how the mechanics of the common practice idiom work.

Not really. I'm still mostly just going off of intuition from experience and my own taste. I still say that if you cannot list the rules in one or two pages, the system may not be well-defined. I have found a few places on the web that have such lists, but they made no mention of some of the points you raise, so they cannot be complete. As a programmer, I am thinking: how complex would a computer program need to be to verify that a given line meets the rules for CPC given a cantus firmus?

[Quijote]

No, we're going around in circles now and that won't do at all. Furthermore, if you expect a list distilling approx 250 years of 'common practice' into one or two pages we may as well stop right there (whether for 4-part harmony or 2-part counterpoint). To be blunt, I have rarely heard anything so ridiculous.
I could of course take each of your points above and answer them, but I see I have made a bad assumption. Before attempting CPC it is essential to have reasonable competence in 4-part harmony work, so we need to put the free counterpoint on hold for the moment and concentrate on the 4-part work. You might ask "Why?" I hope I have explained that above, but I repeat it again: 2-part common practice free counterpoint is all about implied 4-part harmony. The false assumption I made was that you already had that.
Let's all try the 4-part Bach chorale harmonization, starting from first principles, and we'll take it from there.
For the exercise (and remember, it's an exercise in 'style', someone else's style or idiom), the aim would be to have a chord against each crotchet (quarter note), but with passing notes (quavers / 8th notes) where possible. It might also be a good idea to bear in mind that often Bach modulates at the pause marks, even though the melody on its own strikes one as being solidly in one key.
Good luck.

[Michael]

I cannot disagree with anything posted so far in this thread.

[Enrique]

Quijote had spoken about giving us a bass for addition of the three upper parts. And could not he give us an exercise in just four-part writing in common practice harmony? Was he not who said one must learn to walk before learning to run?

[Chris]

Furthermore, if you expect a list distilling approx 250 years of 'common practice' into one or two pages we may as well stop right there (whether for 4-part harmony or 2-part counterpoint). To be blunt, I have rarely heard anything so ridiculous.

If you are making objective judgments about whether or not the work handed in by your students is correct in the sense that it conforms to these rules, then I would expect that they should be able to be enumerated. Surely you are not checking each note of theirs against an entire book full of criteria. I would not expect the reasoning and history behind it all to be expressible in two pages, but there can't be more than a few dozen enumerable rules. There simply aren't that many combinations of things that could happen. Setting aside subjective matters, rules for syntactically correct sentences in languages can be listed in less space than that. So for that matter could all the laws of classical physics.

You are presenting these quizzes not as opportunities for creating art, but as puzzles in which answers are right or wrong. A useful and interesting exercise, certainly, but if they are mechanical exercises then there must be a mechanical method for determining a correct solution.

I could of course take each of your points above and answer them, but I see I have made a bad assumption. Before attempting CPC it is essential to have reasonable competence in 4-part harmony work, so we need to put the free counterpoint on hold for the moment and concentrate on the 4-part work.

Very well, but would you at least answer the questions I asked above regarding why your unisons were acceptable, and regarding the distance between the two lines, which I thought should not exceed a 10th except briefly for a good reason? These are gnawing at me.

For the exercise (and remember, it's an exercise in 'style', someone else's style or idiom)

I am already dreading the results of this. Creating four-part harmony for a given line would be one thing, but creating something in the style of Bach is going to be far harder and far more difficult to judge than even two-part counterpoint. How many of Bach's common (but unique) techniques have to be present for it to count as Bach's style? I have listened to every note of Bach that has ever been put to record, including all the harmonized chorales, and I have studied and played some of them as well, but I doubt I would be able to create something that is convincingly in the style of Bach without years of studying specifically to do just that. And no doubt all of the other chorale harmonizations I have used that were not in Bach's style will make it harder. But I will try!

the aim would be to have a chord against each crotchet (quarter note), but with passing notes (quavers / 8th notes) where possible. It might also be a good idea to bear in mind that often Bach modulates at the pause marks, even though the melody on its own strikes one as being solidly in one key.
Good luck.

OK, some concrete requirements, good. I'll be Bach with my solution...

[Sorrano]

Quijote had spoken about giving us a bass for addition of the three upper parts. And could not he give us an exercise in just four-part writing in common practice harmony? Was he not who said one must learn to walk before learning to run?

Look at post 157.

[Enrique]

I already had.