Little free counterpoint quiz

[Chris]

It is a 'problem' in terms of common practice counterpoint (hereafter CPC) as I just alluded to above.

OK, well, first of all, I should say that I thought the idea was just to create a nice second line, not necessarily as Bach etc. would have done it. If I had known that, I would have been hesitant to do it, because, as I said, I don't know where the list of rules is that I'm supposed to be following. I don't even know if it was a list of rules to them or just something that was derived afterward in order to sort of describe their tastes.

According to CPC then, the 4th is considered to be a dissonance and needs careful treatment. In my working, you will note a 4th in bar 6 (E-flat-G-C Violin I / C-D-E-flat Violin II). In it, the 4th is treated as a 'passing 4th' creating the typical 'horn effect'. Your 4th is 'exposed' and contrapuntally weak because it is not treated as 'passing', you land 'wham' on the 4th.

Do you consider it exposed because it comes after a leap or because it occurs right on one of the beats of the measure (considering 6/8 to have two)?

No, no trap was laid! Now here's the important thing: the lower of the two parts, whatever its pitch or designation, must function as a bass.

Why? Why can't it just be two melodic lines that imply a different bass? There are many parts in Bach's two-part inventions, for example, where it doesn't seem like the lower part is functioning as a bass. It's imitating the upper part or doing something else, and I can imagine some other bass part being present.

Therefore, in the C minor exercise I gave, the Violin II part screamed out its harmonic basis, which is why I just couldn't figure out where you saw G minor!

It sounded good to play a G minor chord over that part!

But I still maintain that to my ears you have not confirmed G minor in no shape or form whatsoever. The second half of your bar 4 going into the first half of bar 5 goes all 'floppy' to my ears, which is why I wrote 'padding' in my annotations.

I grant that I did not confirm it, but I thought the lack of confirmation of E-flat major was enough to make the ear default to it. Though again, I was not taking the lower part as a bass line in this.

"The doctrine that the two parts should move as much as possible in contrary motion is sound enough..."

I have to question this. My understanding was that there should be a good mix of parallel and contrary motion, and I took care to accomplish that in my working. To me, if you have just one kind of motion, even contrary motion, the ear tires of it; a mixture is far more interesting.

Had your note been an E-flat instead of the D you actually wrote, then that F just after (where I annotate 'unresolved 7th') would indeed have passed as an 'inessential' note.

Is that just because it would then be a single step away instead of a jump to the F?

You have Violin I (F) & Violin II (B natural) moving up a step in parallel 5ths. OK, a diminished 5th followed by a perfect 5th, but in 2-part counterpoint a big no-no. In 4-part harmony that would be allowed between any of the voices but not with the bass.

I don't understand this at all. How can there be parallel fifths when one interval is not a perfect fifth? I thought the whole reason for avoiding parallel fifths in the first place was because of the weakness of the sound of two consecutive perfect fifths between two parts. No?

Will you try the second exercise I posted (A minor)? It's a lot simpler. A bit boring really, but it's an exercise!!

Perhaps, but first I will have to get a definitive list of the rules I am supposed to be following! I will check your provided source.

[Enrique]

OK Quijote: Really, I posted here out of pure inconscience.

Note: I have my spell corrector on to help me find the words. There are so many words with common roots in English and Spanish the if I think in the concept "vulnerability", not knowing before hand if the word exists in English, I try with Spanish (vulnerabilidad), a transformation of it. It's easy to guess the English form if the word exists with the help of the corrector. E.g., I write atention, because, existing in Spanish (atencion, with an accent), I say, perhaps in English too. But the corrector says 'atention' does not exist (it is not infallible, though). So I say: perhaps with a double t, and the corrector accepts it.

That is the "find English word" spell corrector function. As to correct spelling, I'd gladly turn the option off, because it distracts me. But believe me, in matters of grammar, I'm really sensible. It irritates me the way in which people ignores it or despises it. This said, do not bother if I write 'inconscience'.

Back to the point. Yes, I did not want to avoid participation and I put my grain of sand.

2nd measure:
In the soprano D is a passing tone (?) between C and E. And C-E parallel to C-E in the other voice.

3rd measure:
line: This is a large skip. The voice should make a soft undulating drawing.
overlay: What is overlay?

4th measure:
sequence: Beginning in the C of the 3rd measure ('bar' is only three letters long), there is an 8-note sequence. Would never have thought of that.

6th measure:
unresolved seventh: do E-F (writing the "chord" top-down) imply a seventh chord, i.e., the two missing factors? I'll bet they do. And must every seventh chord be resolved or only the dominant seventh chord?

7th measure:
I was about to write an appogiatura here, F-E in the soprano.



As to getting on with the exercises, well... To obey the rules of counterpoint implies a knowledge of harmony, in which I am highly deficient, if not totally devoid of it. Had I a little more background in harmony, and some counterpoint, I would gladly get on with the exercices. This does not mean I may not ask a a question or make a remark, here and there.

[Quijote]

Dear Chris and Enrique, I will get back to you about your points above, but not tonight, I'm too tired. Probably this coming weekend.

[Chris]

Sorry Chris, but once again in terms of CPC it doesn't work, though I see very well what you are attempting musically (and for which I applaud you). So, whilst faulty in terms of CPC, what I like about this passage in your working (bar 6) is how the first 3 quavers (8ths) in your Violin I 'reverse echo' the rising Violin II part and then directly 'echo' or 'continue the line' in the second part of the bar. 'Compositionally' speaking it works.

By the way, my organ teacher disagrees with you on this, and says he could find examples were Bach did the same!

[Quijote]

OK, well, first of all, I should say that I thought the idea was just to create a nice second line, not necessarily as Bach etc. would have done it. If I had known that, I would have been hesitant to do it, because, as I said, I don't know where the list of rules is that I'm supposed to be following. I don't even know if it was a list of rules to them or just something that was derived afterward in order to sort of describe their tastes.

Noted. But I wouldn't call my harmony and counterpoint (Strict & Free) textbooks a 'list of rules', rather 'manuals of common practices'.

Do you consider it exposed because it comes after a leap or because it occurs right on one of the beats of the measure (considering 6/8 to have two)?

A fourth on the beat can be fine if it is an appoggiatura, an auxiliary note (even a leaping one between two harmony notes), in an arpeggio figure, a passing fourth or as a suspension (depending on note length value).

[Quijote]

Please bear with me as I deal with the points one by one. Better for the continuity ...

[Quijote]

Why? Why can't it just be two melodic lines that imply a different bass? There are many parts in Bach's two-part inventions, for example, where it doesn't seem like the lower part is functioning as a bass. It's imitating the upper part or doing something else, and I can imagine some other bass part being present.

Why? Because that's how CPC functions. Perhaps I didn't set out the perimeters of my Little Counterpoint Quiz clearly enough. Sure, you can write what you want in any idiom (Shostakovitch, say?) but the fun we're having with these CPC exercises are just that - a stylistic exercise, or 'pastiche' if you prefer.
I think you will find on closer analysis that in Bach's 2-part inventions the harmonic basis is there, even in imitative passages. But we'll be doing such exercises later this year on the BRS, if all goes well! Before we run we must learn first to walk.

It sounded good to play a G minor chord over that part!

As you want. I didn't say your working sounded bad, just that it has CPC flaws. No, not bad at all, but a couple of 'floppy' moments!

I grant that I did not confirm it, but I thought the lack of confirmation of E-flat major was enough to make the ear default to it. Though again, I was not taking the lower part as a bass line in this.

Default settings, hey? But as you said, you weren't taking the lower part as a bass line. Fair enough, but I would have said that the Violin II part screamed out "I am a 'cello/bass line transposed up an octave and given a wrong designation!"

I have to question this. My understanding was that there should be a good mix of parallel and contrary motion, and I took care to accomplish that in my working. To me, if you have just one kind of motion, even contrary motion, the ear tires of it; a mixture is far more interesting.

Yes, you're right and I didn't give the complete quote from my Free Counterpoint textbook. Here it is: "The doctrine that the two parts should move as much as possible in contrary motion is sound enough, provided that the resulting implied harmony is also sound; but contrary motion for its own sake regardless of harmonic implication is to be avoided."

Is that just because it would then be a single step away instead of a jump to the F?

Yes, the harmonic notes would then have been the E-flat and G with the intervening F functioning as an unessential (i.e. non-harmonic) passing note.

I don't understand this at all. How can there be parallel fifths when one interval is not a perfect fifth? I thought the whole reason for avoiding parallel fifths in the first place was because of the weakness of the sound of two consecutive perfect fifths between two parts. No?

Yes. Parallel fifths (of the perfect kind) are proscribed between any two voices. A perfect fifth followed by a diminished fifth is permissible between any of the upper voices, but not with the bass. In 2-part CPC writing where the lower part has to function as the bass you see where the objection lies. But once again (because I was not clear in my instructions it seems) you misjudged that B natural (leading note in C minor) rising to the tonic. if your F in Violin I at that point dropped to an E-flat you would have had a nice implied V7-I.

Perhaps, but first I will have to get a definitive list of the rules I am supposed to be following! I will check your provided source.

Lists, lists! The source I provided gives a Free Counterpoint manual that I have never used, so I can't vouch for its quality. The two references I gave before (Lovelock and Swindale) are on the other hand tried and tested. But before that, you should really make sure that your 4-part harmony know-how is there, because if not attempting 2-part CPC exercises might be problematic. As I said before, to do 2-part CPC you need to think in 4-part common practice harmony before writing 2-part work with 'implied' harmony.

[Quijote]

[...] Back to the point. Yes, I did not want to avoid participation and I put my grain of sand.

2nd measure:
In the soprano D is a passing tone (?) between C and E. And C-E parallel to C-E in the other voice.

I'm afraid that the D passing note does not remove the parallel octaves. If I may quote my master : "A passage incorrect without passing notes is equally incorrect with them."

3rd measure:
line: This is a large skip. The voice should make a soft undulating drawing.

I'm afraid that this leap creates an exposed 5th.

overlay: What is overlay?

Sorry, poor handwriting! Overlap. Your Violin II part at this point is over the Violin I part, creating confusion of the parts and hence a capital offense deserving 6 lashes of the whip.

4th measure:
sequence: Beginning in the C of the 3rd measure ('bar' is only three letters long), there is an 8-note sequence. Would never have thought of that.

That's what my students tell me when they start with me. When we are done and I release them into the world, they pick up on such things much quicker!

6th measure:
unresolved seventh: do E-F (writing the "chord" top-down) imply a seventh chord, i.e., the two missing factors? I'll bet they do. And must every seventh chord be resolved or only the dominant seventh chord?

In common practice harmony, any 7th chord can either resolve onto another 7th chord or straight to its resolution. But there must be some sort of final resolution, clearly, even if I write a long chain of secondary sevenths.

7th measure:
I was about to write an appogiatura here, F-E in the soprano.

Yes, I rather liked your tierce de Picardie, and an appoggiatura F-E would have worked very well indeed.

As to getting on with the exercises, well... To obey the rules of counterpoint implies a knowledge of harmony, in which I am highly deficient, if not totally devoid of it. Had I a little more background in harmony, and some counterpoint, I would gladly get on with the exercises. This does not mean I may not ask a a question or make a remark, here and there.

You're perfectly right, Enrique. To be perfectly frank, there will be problems with CPC if one does not already have the basics of 4-part common practice harmony. Maybe I should launch a quiz on 4-part harmony first? Starting from 'first principles', so to speak? Would that be of interest to you and others on the forum? I feel embarrassed now for having made a sweeping assumption.

[Sorrano]

You're perfectly right, Enrique. To be perfectly frank, there will be problems with CPC if one does not already have the basics of 4-part common practice harmony. Maybe I should launch a quiz on 4-part harmony first? Starting from 'first principles', so to speak? Would that be of interest to you and others on the forum? I feel embarrassed now for having made a sweeping assumption.

A review for those of us who have not been involved in the theory for a long period of time (or even at all) could be helpful.

[Quijote]

By the way, my organ teacher disagrees with you on this, and says he could find examples were Bach did the same!

It's certainly the case that Bach often breaks the 'academic' rules (and his 4-part chorale harmonizations are peppered with such cases). Please do let me have a few examples for my own learning. Does your present organ teacher have the sort of lists you're looking for, by the way?

[Quijote]

After suitable grovelling (and undisclosed cash emoluments) from the Blue Baron, I have decided to accept his modified working. Here it is as an attached PDF document. I reserve comment for the moment until Chris, Sorrano and Enrique have posted their versions.

[Quijote]

Dear Arno, I'll annotate your working when the others have posted, OK?

[Quijote]

And Blue Baron, I shall also 'nit-pick' your effort later !

[Quijote]

A review for those of us who have not been involved in the theory for a long period of time (or even at all) could be helpful.

OK Sorrano, we can do that. I'm just a bit concerned of committing myself to a long-term engagement of this nature simply from the point of view of time-availability. We could maybe have an exercise or two per month? But where to start? Maybe I could post a sort of 'diagnostic test' to see where we all are in terms of handling common practice harmony?

[Quijote]

What about a harmonization of a Bach chorale? We all know the Bach idiom, so I could choose one of the chorale melodies, you guys harmonize it by adding the Alto, Tenor and Bass and we take it from there? Could be fun. Could be hell.