Little free counterpoint quiz

[Chris]

I like rules fine, assuming they can actually be listed! That is really my fascination with this - my entire job is basically making lists of rules for things.

I question what we're doing here, because I'm not really sure what the point is. Is it to harmonize things like Bach? Is that really useful? Unless you are making a movie and want to show a scene of Bach writing a piece that we don't know about, I'm not sure that's a very useful end in itself.

Is it to study the style of Bach so that we can distinguish his work from that of his contemporaries? If you want to be a musicologist, I suppose that's useful. Otherwise, who cares?

Is it to study the compositional process of Bach, so that, in learning about how a great composer thought about things, we might become better composers or even just better appreciate the work of a great composer? That seems quite useful. But in that case, the question of whether or not it was a rule that Bach was consciously following or if it is a coincidence is highly relevant.

In any case, this seems like a bizarrely specific rule. And if the reason for it is forbidding things that lessen the impact of a cadence (a fine reason to have a rule, no doubt), it seems like it could be stated more generally, in a way that illustrates its purpose.

[Quijote]

Sometimes in my classes a student asks a seemingly pertinent question that tests my patience to the extreme. In such cases (increasingly rare, as my reputation gets 'passed down' from year to year to those embarking on their second and third years), I throw the question out to other students, inviting them to propose suitable ripostes. Some do, most don't. I'll try it here, on this thread: I invite others who have participated so far to answer Chris. If none are forthcoming, I will answer your points myself.

[Quijote]

Before anyone does so, I'll just ask you one, Chris: Why, in the English language, does the verb come where it does? Perhaps a silly example : "I like smoking". Why not "Smoking like I"? I mean, the meaning is clear. So why do we do that?

[Chris]

Before anyone does so, I'll just ask you one, Chris: Why, in the English language, does the verb come where it does? Perhaps a silly example : "I like smoking". Why not "Smoking like I"? I mean, the meaning is clear. So why do we do that?

The verb is in the same place in both cases here, so I assume you're talking about the placement of the subject and the object. The reason is that a lot of nouns do not have different forms for subject and object, so order is the only way to make the meaning unambiguous in general. In a language like Latin, with its numerous declensions, word order can be more free.

[Chris]

And I'm not raising objections that I need answered, I'm trying to discern the high-level objective behind exercises like this. Because, for the only one I can think of that makes any sense, whether a rule was deliberate or coincidental is quite relevant.

[Quijote]

I will wait for others to reply to your post #227. As I said, if nobody steps up I will answer you.

[Quijote]

I like rules fine, assuming they can actually be listed! That is really my fascination with this - my entire job is basically making lists of rules for things.

Well of course, all these CPH and CPC rules (we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg on this thread) are ‘listed’ in the reliable and reputable harmony and counterpoint manuals. The full 3-year harmony course manuals run to some 370 pages (depending on the author, and of course including numerous examples and exercises). The Free Counterpoint manual I use runs to 110 pages, including examples and exercises. You (and Enrique, Sorrano and Arno) have two choices: take a short cut and invest in such manuals and get reading double quick and find someone to correct/comment your workings of the exercises such manuals have, or continue on the thread, learning as we go along. If we persist here, I envisage one or two exercises per month (depending on my availability), and for the thread to continue for a couple of years.

I question what we're doing here, because I'm not really sure what the point is. Is it to harmonize things like Bach? Is that really useful? Unless you are making a movie and want to show a scene of Bach writing a piece that we don't know about, I'm not sure that's a very useful end in itself.

The point? First, I would hope to have a bit of fun; second, to have a review of our common practice harmony via the harmonization of Bach chorales; third, to see via the exercises just what the Bach ‘idiom’ entails, with its divergences (at times) from CPH; four, to extend this (later – first walk, then run) to a more general practice, dealing with harmonic resources from (very approx) Bach to Schubert.
Is it useful? Obviously, as competence in harmony (and then counterpoint) can only benefit one’s overall musicianship and understanding of the art of music.

Is it to study the style of Bach so that we can distinguish his work from that of his contemporaries? If you want to be a musicologist, I suppose that's useful. Otherwise, who cares?

At the moment we are concentrating on harmonizing chorales ‘in the style of' JS Bach. The Bach chorales are a very effective way of teaching harmony. First-year students where I teach are initially given the theoretical and rudimentary elements of 4-part harmony (what you would find in most manuals entitled “First Year Harmony”). Very roughly, this covers triads and chord progressions (quite a few rules to digest there), cadences and simple harmonizations, first inversions of triads, second inversions of same, unaccented passing notes, dominant sevenths, the mediant triad (a special case, its use in melodic/harmonic minor scales), accented passing notes, suspensions, elementary modulation, treatment of modulating sequences, auxiliary notes and certain of the more common secondary sevenths. In their second year first term, thus armed, the students then have to face me. The first term is devoted entirely to applying all these rudiments in the harmonization of Bach chorales, with additional harmonic resources as I see fit. If the group is weak, I reinforce what they have learnt; if they are strong, we cover the Bach and take a look at some of his more unorthodox practices.
In their second term, we move on to the harmonic resources we would find in the ‘Classical’ string quartet. There, we consolidate all they have so far learnt, and extend it to cover specifically the so-called ‘classical’ idiom (augmented chords, Neapolitan 6th, more complex secondary 7ths, more complex modulations etc. In that term (or semester) I concentrate almost exclusively on the quartets of Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven.
In their third-year, students have a choice: continue with me or opt for the jazz harmony course. Those that opt for me (poor devils) then get the full Quijote treatment: unessential notes (triple suspensions, retardations, appoggiaturas, notes of anticipation), advanced modulation, composition of modulating passages, all diminished and augmented triads, all secondary sevenths, elliptical resolutions, chromatic harmony, and (if time allows) chromatic and enharmonic modulation. When I get a really gifted group, we also embark on the elements of Free Counterpoint.

So, certainly a useful grounding in common practice harmony that would serve anyone’s overall musicianship, aural skills, compositional skills and one’s understanding of how ‘tonal’ music works. Not only that, I think it provides them with the ability to talk intelligently about their art. Useful certainly for musicologists, instrumentalists, composers, teachers and anyone with an interest in the subject we call ‘music’.

Who cares? I hope everybody does.

Is it to study the compositional process of Bach, so that, in learning about how a great composer thought about things, we might become better composers or even just better appreciate the work of a great composer? That seems quite useful. But in that case, the question of whether or not it was a rule that Bach was consciously following or if it is a coincidence is highly relevant.

I have already addressed above the first part of this quote section from you. For the second part: of course Bach was following a body of common practice. I believe his harmony and counterpoint manual was that by Fux (the one Haydn would have used on Beethoven!). A coincidence it ain’t.

In any case, this seems like a bizarrely specific rule. And if the reason for it is forbidding things that lessen the impact of a cadence (a fine reason to have a rule, no doubt), it seems like it could be stated more generally, in a way that illustrates its purpose.

You’ll have to drop your “everything on two pages” mindset if you want to learn something from me, I’m afraid. The rule you refer to has its musical reason. In fact all these rules have a ‘musical’ reason and are not at all arbitrary as you seem to think. Can it be stated more generally? Tell you what, you give it a go! If it’s good, I might adopt it.

[Chris]

You’ll have to drop your “everything on two pages” mindset if you want to learn something from me, I’m afraid.

Never! But again, I am not saying I expect everything should be able to be explained and illustrated in so short a space, just listed in the most general forms possible. In my line of work, a huge number of specific rules means you have probably failed to generalize enough, and there is going to be a failure in some state you did not explicitly consider because of it. I can't really not think of it like a programmer - how do I write the simplest program possible to check the validity of my harmonization? In fact, I'd bet that someone has already done this.

The rule you refer to has its musical reason. In fact all these rules have a ‘musical’ reason and are not at all arbitrary as you seem to think.

I don't think any of the rules are arbitrary. I am sure they developed for perfectly logical reasons. What gets me is that they seem arbitrary because they are so specific. "The bass of the 6/4 chord may not be approached by leap from an inversion of another chord" seems less like a rule and more like a specific application of a rule.

Can it be stated more generally? Tell you what, you give it a go! If it’s good, I might adopt it.

Yes, clearly I am going to have to write an entirely new harmony manual. I'll get right on that as soon as I have provided the world with a new programming manual, which it badly needs!

But my question was really about classifying the rule you are applying. Is it:

1) A rule of harmony that exists for a general musical reason
2) An aspect of the specific style of Bach that he explicitly pursued
3) An aspect of the specific style of Bach that he did not explicitly pursue

And yes, it really does matter, if the point is to understand the work of Bach and why he did what he did!

And you have answered that question quite satisfactorily; the answer is 1), and the reasoning behind it has to do with maximizing the effectiveness of a cadence. Good enough! Now I can go to the piano and test it out, and try to hear how exactly this affects the effectiveness of a cadence.

[Quijote]

I can't really not think of it like a programmer - how do I write the simplest program possible to check the validity of my harmonization? In fact, I'd bet that someone has already done this.

Let me know when you find it.

I don't think any of the rules are arbitrary. I am sure they developed for perfectly logical reasons. What gets me is that they seem arbitrary because they are so specific. "The bass of the 6/4 chord may not be approached by leap from an inversion of another chord" seems less like a rule and more like a specific application of a rule.

Got about 300+ pages of these 'specific application of rules' waiting for you. Unless you come up with that computer programme you mentioned above.

Yes, clearly I am going to have to write an entirely new harmony manual. I'll get right on that as soon as I have provided the world with a new programming manual, which it badly needs!

I'll be waiting.

And yes, it really does matter, if the point is to understand the work of Bach and why he did what he did!

First, you need to understand the musical reason, which I think you do. But it doesn't end there. There are general rules (and here I'm thinking about the passing 6/4 and not the cadential 6/4) which Bach simply avoids. We will have to ask ourselves why Bach seemingly prefers one solution over another. We will see that particular point in the next exercise I post.

Now I can go to the piano and test it out, and try to hear how exactly this affects the effectiveness of a cadence.

Splendid! I do believe we're making progress.

[Quijote]

And now my working (version 4) with this error removed.

[Quijote]

And so we have seen 2 types of possible harmonizations:
A) straight one beat/one chord;
B) a more 'moving' harmonization (still simple harmonies) based on unaccented passing notes.

The type-A harmonization is perfectly correct and 'solid', but much less frequent in the Bach '371'. In the next exercise to come, the idea will be to add as many passing notes (unaccented & accented) as musically possible (especially in the bass part), and to use the progression called the passing 6/4 (e.g. I-V6/4-I6). Be careful with the accented passing notes as their use has certain restrictions.

[Chris]

Let me know when you find it.

A quick search turned up something called CHORAL, developed by Kemal Ebcioglu, which can do even better and actually create a harmonization in the style of Bach. Here is the paper describing it:

http://global-supercomputing.com/peo...oglu-JLP90.pdf

[Quijote]

A quick search turned up something called CHORAL, developed by Kemal Ebcioglu, which can do even better and actually create a harmonization in the style of Bach. Here is the paper describing it:

http://global-supercomputing.com/peo...oglu-JLP90.pdf

I knew you wouldn't disappoint me. Quite an interesting article, I must say. I'm still in my job though, because it's as sure as mustard if this had reached the general market my students would have used it, lazy asses that they are (not all, to be fair). So, would using this software improve one's musicianship? It would certainly be a great dodge for exams.
I shall be taking a closer look at your workings in view of this article.

[Sorrano]

Maybe if they were a little less lazy they might have gotten hold of this already. Apparently, it must be obvious that they haven't. ;-)

[Chris]

I knew you wouldn't disappoint me. Quite an interesting article, I must say. I'm still in my job though, because it's as sure as mustard if this had reached the general market my students would have used it, lazy asses that they are (not all, to be fair). So, would using this software improve one's musicianship? It would certainly be a great dodge for exams.
I shall be taking a closer look at your workings in view of this article.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way! There is a clear opportunity here. If there is no generally available implementation of this, we could make one, what with my programming ability and your knowledge of harmony. Even a much simpler thing that only checked to see what rules might have been broken would be useful. Useful for students checking their work, composers who want to double-check their compositions, and especially harmony teachers who would be able to press a button and have their grading accomplished instantly! It could be done as a Finale plug-in, a stand-alone program, or even one of those new-fangled iPad apps that the kids love so much. We'd be rich!

Or I could just buy a harmony book and cut you out of it completely. Hm. Yes, forget I said anything...