Little free counterpoint quiz

[Quijote]

Take a look at the attached PDF, especially Chorale N° 283. Nice tenor line there. Alto and Bass pretty good, too !

[Chris]

And the same for Chris.

Wow, I have escaped unscathed this time! In fact it looks like my first three measures are (nearly) identical to yours. A first sign of my descent into madness?

I will have to look through your other versions later and see if I can find the mistake, and also to see what other things might have been possible.

Ah, in the Bach chorale harmonizations his Tenors (and Altos !) do some pretty amazing things, in fact. My versions 2 and 3 make a humble approach to that. Whoever made up that rule about being "on the right track if the tenor part is uninteresting" should be shot! Probably written by some 19th century Anglican clergyman !!!!!!!!

No, it was written by a 21st century Catholic organist... I have noticed that in most of the four-part hymns I play, the tenor line is incredibly boring, really just filling out the harmony and totally uninteresting in itself. Often the range does not exceed a fifth, and I can play it with the left hand without having to move the hand at all. A lot of repeated notes. The alto lines are not much better. The overall effect is fine, but it sure is boring to actually sing with the tenors! Of course, the harmonizations in our hymnal are quite simple (pretty much just as in my four-part working), and using something more harmonically complex tends to throw off the congregation.

Take a look at the attached PDF, especially Chorale N° 283. Nice tenor line there.

Yes, and it dips below the bass at places. He really should lose a few points for that...

[Quijote]

Wow, I have escaped unscathed this time! In fact it looks like my first three measures are (nearly) identical to yours. A first sign of my descent into madness?

Hah! A descent into quixotic madness, yes! Bach though will be judge of that when we meet him in later years 'up there'. I've already made my appointment to see him, but he's a bit put out hearing that I booked an appointment with Louis first!

I will have to look through your other versions later and see if I can find the mistake, and also to see what other things might have been possible.

Happy hunting !

No, it was written by a 21st century Catholic organist...

Sure as hell wasn't Messiaen !

I have noticed that in most of the four-part hymns I play, the tenor line is incredibly boring, really just filling out the harmony and totally uninteresting in itself. Often the range does not exceed a fifth, and I can play it with the left hand without having to move the hand at all. A lot of repeated notes. The alto lines are not much better. The overall effect is fine, but it sure is boring to actually sing with the tenors! Of course, the harmonizations in our hymnal are quite simple (pretty much just as in my four-part working), and using something more harmonically complex tends to throw off the congregation.

Yes, and most of those hymnals were composed, I believe, by 19th century Anglican clergymen! In Bach's day maybe his congregations were also put off by his harmonies, but there would have been a 'hard core' of competent/professional singers.

Yes, and it dips below the bass at places. He really should lose a few points for that...

Well well, old JSB has just sent me a PM from 'up there' saying he'll have your guts for that, and wishes to point out that when his tenor dips under the bass it is to continue a strong melodic line, knowing that the choir was underpinned by 'cellos and basses playing an octave lower than the actual vocal bass line and thus maintaining harmonic integrity.

[Sorrano]

Looks like I need to spend some quality time with Herr Piston. I can't believe I missed the parallel 5ths and 8ths, all in the same place, too! Bad Sorrano!

[Chris]

PS: There is one mistake in my working (same place as in version 2 as well) that I could have easily changed, but I'll leave it as it is. See if you can find it ! If not, I'll let you know where it is and the rule that applies.

On the first beat of the second to last measure your soprano and alto lines are more than an octave apart. That seems to make for a bit of a bottom-heavy voicing. Is that what you were referring to?

[Enrique]

Second attempt. My editor had some difficulties with notation. Bear with it, please.

[Peter]

And my 3rd version. same as version 2 (harmonically), but more 'jazzed up' rhythm !!
PS: There is one mistake in my working (same place as in version 2 as well) that I could have easily changed, but I'll leave it as it is. See if you can find it ! If not, I'll let you know where it is and the rule that applies.

Should we play it in swing time?!

Is your error fifths in the second bar inner parts? Also your leading note frequently falls instead of rising but that's ok I recall in the inner parts n'est pas?

[Enrique]

My second attempt was worse than the first, I now realize. So I'm sending a third one, if I may, despite the fact that, after finishing it, I looked at Quijote no. 1 solution and found the second phrase had almost the same bass. I did this with that second half of the chorale fragment: instead of planning an harmonic progression, I began writing the bass and then find out an harmonic progression that fitted. But the bass matched Quijote's one almost to perfection. Bad luck.

[Quijote]

Looks like I need to spend some quality time with Herr Piston. I can't believe I missed the parallel 5ths and 8ths, all in the same place, too! Bad Sorrano!

Bad boy! I shall have to think up a suitable punishment.

[Quijote]

On the first beat of the second to last measure your soprano and alto lines are more than an octave apart. That seems to make for a bit of a bottom-heavy voicing. Is that what you were referring to?

Nope. It's true that the manuals/treatises tell us that 'next door' parts should not be more than an octave apart, except Tenor and Bass. In my working I allow myself to break the rule, taking Bach himself as my teacher: see attached PDF. In this chorale (N° 5), you will see 2 instances where the Alto breaks this rule: bars 13 and 17 (counting all anacrusis bars as complete bars).
But my students are not allowed to do this until I say they can.

[Quijote]

Second attempt. My editor had some difficulties with notation. Bear with it, please.

OK Enrique, I'll take a look at that later.

[Quijote]

Should we play it in swing time?!

I should say so! Bach 'rocks', you know.

Is your error fifths in the second bar inner parts? Also your leading note frequently falls instead of rising but that's ok I recall in the inner parts n'est pas?

No, those 5ths are allowed (a perfect 5th followed by a diminished 5th or vice versa). Yes, in the chorales Bach resolves the leading note either by dropping a third or rising a fourth. The reason? He wants a full chord at the cadence points (but of course there are exceptions).

So, do you all want more time to find my error, or shall I put you out of your misery?

[Quijote]

Well, I'll take that silence as a "We give up, Don, please enlighten us!"
The mistake is the last quaver (8th note) in the Bass of bar 1 and the first beat of the next bar.
My bass (A) leaps to the bass of a 6/4 chord (D). The rule is that the bass of the 6/4 chord may not be approached by leap from an inversion of another chord. I approach the bass of the 6/4 via a first inversion of a VII7.

[Chris]

Well, I'll take that silence as a "We give up, Don, please enlighten us!"
The mistake is the last quaver (8th note) in the Bass of bar 1 and the first beat of the next bar.
My bass (A) leaps to the bass of a 6/4 chord (D). The rule is that the bass of the 6/4 chord may not be approached by leap from an inversion of another chord. I approach the bass of the 6/4 via a first inversion of a VII7.

Oh, for goodness sake! Is that really a rule that Bach and other composers of his time explicitly followed, or was that something derived from a kind of statistical analysis later?

[Quijote]

Oh, for goodness sake! Is that really a rule that Bach and other composers of his time explicitly followed, or was that something derived from a kind of statistical analysis later?

What does it matter? In 95% of cases in the Bach 371 harmonized chorales that have come down to us, his use of the cadential 6/4 follows this pattern (i.e. the bass of the 6/4 not approached by leap from another inverted chord; most often by stepwise motion in the bass).
So, when we try to harmonize a chorale melody 'in the style of JS Bach' these are the 'syntactical' touches we need to respect. You have a problem with that?

However, there is a musical reason for this 'rule' (that seems to grate on you so much). The musical idea is one of cadential impact. Let us say that the most 'effective' approach (in this idiom) would be IV-I6/4 - V or IV6-I6/4-V or II-I6/4-V or II6-I6/4-V. My first inversion VII7 (a sort of premature 'dominant effect' if I may put it that way) 'takes away' the final impact of reaching that perfect cadence.

Like rules you not seem to. Them for often reasons are good there.