Little free counterpoint quiz

[Chris]

I don't agree. Whether it is 2-part or 4-part work in the common practice style (Bach up to Beethoven, very roughly speaking), there are stylistic 'fingerprints' that can be reproduced, despite the 'unique' touches that set these composers apart. This is the what the music exams that I set are about: the ability to 'distil' the 'idiom' of each composer. There is no magic, there are no easy 2-page lists; rather, it is a question of study and assimilation.

It sounds like you do agree, then. It takes a specific study of the techniques of Bach to make something in his style, and I haven't done that. I've played a lot of Bach, so certainly I have absorbed some of it, and I'd feel confident in telling his style apart from, say, Handel, but actually producing something in that style would take a little more specific knowledge.

You went to the four-part exercises because you wanted to give us something more basic to start with than the two-part, but it seems adding the additional requirement that it has to be specifically in the style of Bach makes it more complicated than the two-part exercises.

You had no idea how it could be relevant?

No, it didn't seem to make a lot of sense. It happens all over the place, in keyboard music constantly. So I don't know what this was supposed to be about.

But about the 'rule' of the '10th' or the 'rule' of the '+12' between the Tenor and Soprano. These rules strike you as random and ill-founded?
Not at all. In vocal music (specifically), they are common-sense in terms of clarity of texture, not to mention sonority.

No, those rules make perfect sense. Perfect sense in that it is quite clear, if you actually listen to an example of it, why it's not a good idea. It just doesn't sound good. When the soprano is well above the other voices, or there is a big gap between the two upper and two lower voices, there is a clear hole there. Unless you are trying to achieve that specific effect for some reason, that's not what you want. The rule about parallel fifths makes sense for the same reason. If you just listen to it, you can hear that it's usually a weak move to make. I wouldn't need anyone to tell me those rules. A little trial and error would be enough to put me off that.

Then there are the rules which my ear does not confirm. For example, I would never have guessed that the rule about parallel fifths could apply to two voices when one of the intervals is not a perfect fifth. That sounds perfectly good to me. So if I am to follow that rule, someone is just going to have to tell me about it. Nor would I ever have guessed that anyone would find ending on a major third undesirable. My modern ears aren't fit for hearing these things the way people did back then. And then there are the things that my ear tells me are no good that are apparently perfectly acceptable in some systems, like your unisons in the last exercise.

But you chose anyway to play the recalcitrant 'give-your-teacher-hell' role anyway, or as you put : "stick it to the man"? I eat this type of student on a regular basis, and I'm paid to never be full up of it, though you can understand I prefer a more varied diet to save me from boredom. You are certainly alleviating that, I grant you! No, really, I love it when students (young or not so young) question me, and I can tell you I have many bovine students.

Indeed! When the man can only tell me what the rules are after I have broken them, sticking it to him is my only option. If I'm going to go down, it might as well be in a blaze of glory. I assume in your actual classes you teach the things you give quizzes on before you give the quizzes, so that students know what the rules of the game are. But having only the quizzes, this reminds me of my old British literature class, where I had no idea what specifically my teacher was looking for. And so we danced! Me trying to pin her down on specifics, her telling me to be quiet and then going outside to smoke... Such fond memories...

I sadly missed out on this kind of sparring during most of my university years. It's rather hard to argue with a teacher about math, since that's about as precise as it gets. I thought the same way about programming techniques as well at the time, but some real-world experience on that front has shown me otherwise. In fact, all the methods they taught us back then were nothing but overly-complicated wastes of time thought up by eggheads trying to get published. If I had known then what I know now, I really would have given those teachers some hell! But enough reminiscing.

Maybe you could scan (with your annotations / questions) and post the Bach invention that you're studying so we can take a look at it?

Perhaps I will, but first I'll follow your lead and work on the four-part harmony. I'll get to that next week, since I have to take a trip this weekend in order to give some engineers a little hell.

[Enrique]

Which number is the post where Quijote, referring to the chorale harmonization exercise speaks about passing notes and hidden modulations in Bach, if somebody knows. I used the search facility but too many items appear.

[Peter]

Which number is the post where Quijote, referring to the chorale harmonization exercise speaks about passing notes and hidden modulations in Bach, if somebody knows. I used the search facility but too many items appear.

160.

[Enrique]

Thank you Peter. And here is my humble contribution. I'll leave the passing notes for a second version. There is a hidden fifth between bass and soprano in the 3rd measure, 1st beat. I did not know how to fix this error. Perhaps, as it is just after the fermata, it can be tolerated.

[Quijote]

It sounds like you do agree, then. It takes a specific study of the techniques of Bach to make something in his style, and I haven't done that. I've played a lot of Bach, so certainly I have absorbed some of it, and I'd feel confident in telling his style apart from, say, Handel, but actually producing something in that style would take a little more specific knowledge.

We 'agree' to the extent that key techniques (others call them 'fingerprints') from a given composer can be enumerated. We disagree to the extent they can be set out on only one or two at-a-glance pages. As I said above, I use an excellent teaching manual (Lovelock: check it out on the internet) about the techniques to be employed when harmonizing a chorale melody in the 'JS Bach' style. 62 lovely (paper) pages. Worth reading!

You went to the four-part exercises because you wanted to give us something more basic to start with than the two-part, but it seems adding the additional requirement that it has to be specifically in the style of Bach makes it more complicated than the two-part exercises.

No, the 2-part exercises are more complex than you imagine, given that one has to write a 2-part rendition of implied 4-part harmony. Your 2-part workings have shown me that you have perhaps deficiencies in basic 4-part thinking. This was a mistake / false assumption on my part. I will seek to redress it.

Then there are the rules which my ear does not confirm. For example, I would never have guessed that the rule about parallel fifths could apply to two voices when one of the intervals is not a perfect fifth.

Two parts (and only 2 parts) moving in parallel fifths (perfect and then diminished or vice versa) sound weak to my ears in the given idiom, not least for the erosion of contrapuntal independence. To my ears, a 2-part diminished 5th (in the Bach idiom and later) screams out for a treatment, this being the lower note (leading note) rising to the tonic and the diminished 5th dropping to the third. In 2-part work this constitutes an implied V7. I hear it no other way (in this idiom).

Indeed! When the man can only tell me what the rules are after I have broken them, sticking it to him is my only option.

Very well! I assumed (wrongly) you knew this stuff, or at least the elementary elements. I was wrong. Still, I detect a certain reluctance on your part. I will overcome that if you play the game.

If I'm going to go down, it might as well be in a blaze of glory. I assume in your actual classes you teach the things you give quizzes on before you give the quizzes, so that students know what the rules of the game are. But having only the quizzes, this reminds me of my old British literature class, where I had no idea what specifically my teacher was looking for. And so we danced! Me trying to pin her down on specifics, her telling me to be quiet and then going outside to smoke... Such fond memories...

Hah! Yes, it's true that my students know what is expected of them, as I expected of you. But I made a false assumption (I repeat myself once again). Let's get down to business and try the 4-part harmonization in the Bach idiom, shall we?

I sadly missed out on this kind of sparring during most of my university years [...] If I had known then what I know now, I really would have given those teachers some hell!

I relish hell, it makes my life less boring.

Perhaps I will, but first I'll follow your lead and work on the four-part harmony. I'll get to that next week, since I have to take a trip this weekend in order to give some engineers a little hell.

I'm sure they are dreading it. Whilst you rip into your engineers, I shall be digesting my lunch.

[Quijote]

Thank you Peter. And here is my humble contribution. I'll leave the passing notes for a second version. There is a hidden fifth between bass and soprano in the 3rd measure, 1st beat. I did not know how to fix this error. Perhaps, as it is just after the fermata, it can be tolerated.

Thankyou Enrique for your working. I'll make the necessary annotations when Chris, Sorrano, Peter and Arno (and others?) have posted their attempts. An initial comment if I may : you are certainly 'on the right lines', despite one or two errors of writing.

[Sorrano]

Mine should be forthcoming this evening (speaking of Mountain West Time Zone); I did see a glaring mistake that needs to be corrected.

[Peter]

Thankyou Enrique for your working. I'll make the necessary annotations when Chris, Sorrano, Peter and Arno (and others?) have posted their attempts. An initial comment if I may : you are certainly 'on the right lines', despite one or two errors of writing.

I'm not sure how I'd relate my offering to you in my previous code - ok for 2 parts, but not for 4 - hence my silence on this one.

[Chris]

We 'agree' to the extent that key techniques (others call them 'fingerprints') from a given composer can be enumerated. We disagree to the extent they can be set out on only one or two at-a-glance pages. As I said above, I use an excellent teaching manual (Lovelock: check it out on the internet) about the techniques to be employed when harmonizing a chorale melody in the 'JS Bach' style. 62 lovely (paper) pages. Worth reading!

My point is that writing in the particular style of an individual is far more complicated than writing in the style of a particular period. That is obvious, since a method that encompasses the styles of many composers is a more general thing, and so more things are possible (allowable). I certainly wouldn't think that the style of Bach could be enumerated in a couple of pages. I suspect that the common practice four-part harmony rules could be, however.

No, the 2-part exercises are more complex than you imagine, given that one has to write a 2-part rendition of implied 4-part harmony. Your 2-part workings have shown me that you have perhaps deficiencies in basic 4-part thinking. This was a mistake / false assumption on my part. I will seek to redress it.

I have a lot more experience with four-part harmony than with two-part. Really, I never thought of two-part works as being subject to the kind of criteria you are subjecting them too. It seems quite limiting when you need to have two distinct and interesting melodic lines. My primary source for this are the Bach two-part inventions, duets, and a few other pieces. As I said, I believe there are several places in these works where we could find some of the things you have noted in my workings. But yes, let's just see how I do with the four-part exercise. I am back now, so I'll try to do this tomorrow.

Very well! I assumed (wrongly) you knew this stuff, or at least the elementary elements. I was wrong.

What do you consider the elementary elements? Consonance, dissonance, tonic, dominant, contrary motion, all that stuff, yes I know that. But I don't know the exact combination of them you are looking for. I studied math and engineering, not music. And though I always took private lessons, my teachers were not interested in talking about this kind of thing, just in learning to play the piano or violin or whatever. I tried, but just getting them to tell me why a certain note was a G-flat instead of an F-sharp was like pulling teeth! And I still never got a good answer! Just, "Oh, it's part of the rules. Don't worry about it." What rules? Who knows?

Eventually I figured a lot of that stuff out on my own, and I always did love to compose music, but I never studied any particular idioms in-depth, because it wasn't particularly relevant. I have read a few books, but if you don't use it frequently, it's hard to retain.

[Sorrano]

Here is my offering. I'm afraid I am about to get mauled on the second measure.

Apologies for the errant rests; somehow they got attached to the 1st voice and I could not get rid of them without redoing the exercise.

[Quijote]

I'm not sure how I'd relate my offering to you in my previous code - ok for 2 parts, but not for 4 - hence my silence on this one.

You could do it. Just write Soprano : a, b, c, d... / Alto: a, b, c, d ... etc. Or on manuscript paper and scan it?

[Quijote]

I certainly wouldn't think that the style of Bach could be enumerated in a couple of pages. I suspect that the common practice four-part harmony rules could be, however.

No, 62 pages just for the Bach chorale harmonization techniques, and (very approximately, depending on the author) about 200+ pages for the common practice rules.

I have a lot more experience with four-part harmony than with two-part. Really, I never thought of two-part works as being subject to the kind of criteria you are subjecting them too. It seems quite limiting when you need to have two distinct and interesting melodic lines. My primary source for this are the Bach two-part inventions, duets, and a few other pieces. As I said, I believe there are several places in these works where we could find some of the things you have noted in my workings. But yes, let's just see how I do with the four-part exercise. I am back now, so I'll try to do this tomorrow.

2-part work is a lot trickier than many students think. If the Bach 2-part inventions are your 'bible' in all this, you will have no better teacher. Be careful though: when Bach breaks the rules there is usually a good reason; when lesser musicians do so, the results are usually crap.

What do you consider the elementary elements?

I would call the elementary stuff what is expected after about 6 years of study before beginning higher education.
Anyway, I look forward to your working, let's see if we can't clear up some lacunae and have fun doing so.

[Peter]

You could do it. Just write Soprano : a, b, c, d... / Alto: a, b, c, d ... etc. Or on manuscript paper and scan it?

Scanner long since packed up!

[Chris]

OK, here's my attempt.

Now I will say right off that I know I've gone a step above the usually accepted tenor range for this kind of thing. And to make it worse, it's at the end of a bit of an upward leap. I don't know how bad a foul that is, so if it's an instant fail, so be it. I could have done something else in that second to last measure that avoided it, but not without sacrificing other things I liked. So, as a tenor myself, I say we need some excitement, because we never get anything interesting to do. I may not have the mythical list of rules for this, but one thing I do know is that if your tenor part is as uninteresting as possible, you are apparently on the right track. So the tenors are just going to have to man up and get 'er done for this one. In my opinion, if you can't hit the high A, you need to get out of the choir loft and go back to sweeping the floor!

[Chris]

Oh shoot, I just realized my attempt to "Bach-ify" this resulted in parallel octaves. Curse this musical Rubik's Cube! I would fix it before Quijote sees it, but I suppose one can't take back a quiz one has just turned in