Lesson with Ram

Originally Posted by Majesty

Another note, these various techniques are valuable tools for development in your compositions.

Next, I would like for you to harmonize your various inversions with chords either above or below the inversions.

OK, here is a first attempt with the subject only, because I want to be sure I got the exercice right. I did not remove the key signature here for the subject, but I will do for the inversions.

Please comment on that first, and then I'll complete the harmonizations for the 3 remaining inversions. Note that all I did was block-chord harmonization, with only marginal concern about voice-leading in the chords, my main goal being to clearly outline the harmony.

Yes, that is the idea. However, don't feel the need to harmonize every individual note. You may use the block chords in other ways to create susupensions, anticipations, etc.

Anyway, I it looks good. I will take a much closer look at it and add more comments if I have any.

Originally Posted by Majesty

Yes, that is the idea. However, don't feel the need to harmonize every individual note. You may use the block chords in other ways to create susupensions, anticipations, etc.

I understand. I did a "basic" harmonization for the subject, but that does not mean it is the sole harmonization of it. I will try to do something different with it (since playing with the subject is likely to be something that occurs often in the fugue) once I have completed the harmonizations of the inversions you asked me to do.

Originally Posted by Majesty

Anyway, I it looks good. I will take a much closer look at it and add more comments if I have any.

So, I guess there was not much to say about it then...

Here's the harmonizations of the true subject inversion (with intervals preserved). You asked me to remove the key signature, so I obeyed.

Please comment before I proceed further with the two remaining inversions.

What you have is good so far. In your harmonizations below and above the inversion in measure two, beat one, I was a little surprised. But I liked it. Do How do you feel about the harmonizations you did? Eventually, I will ask you do write a fugue project. My hope is that you might take use some of the exercises as sketches or ideas. You could use the harmonization exercises as a kind of harmonic outline when leading your voices in the fugue.

Also, although some don't make a big deal out of parallel or direct perfect 5ths in the inner voices, I like to have them avoided if you can.

You can continue with the others.

Originally Posted by Majesty

What you have is good so far. In your harmonizations below and above the inversion in measure two, beat one, I was a little surprised. But I liked it.

OK then, I will continue and complete the harmonization of the other 2 inversions.

What surprised you? The sudden change of tonality? I've kept a smooth voice leading in the bass in the first case (F -> Eb) and a common tone in the second case (the upper C) to keep that as musical as possible. To my ear it did not sound bad, although I agree it is not something the listener can expect at this point. It can spark interest though, and the subject transition at this place is a tritone, a remarkable interval.

Originally Posted by Majesty

How do you feel about the harmonizations you did? Eventually, I will ask you do write a fugue project. My hope is that you might take use some of the exercises as sketches or ideas. You could use the harmonization exercises as a kind of harmonic outline when leading your voices in the fugue.

Well, I understand the aim is to write a fugue with this material, and this is only preparation... Of course I intend to use the harmonization exercises to guide me when writing the voices as counterpoint, but like I said, I did not pay too much attention to parallels when placing the various voices of these exercises, other than making sure dissonances were prepared when possible and resolve properly, and that no invalid doubling took place, but I did not pay attention to faulty parallels (the intent was to find harmonies to use whilst counterpointing, not writing 3 voices on top of the subject, right?).

So naturally, when writing the counterpoint, I will be able to use any consonant note in the harmony, not necessarily the one I've written during the harmonization. Or I may have to add an accented passing tone for imitation purposes... I have not really prepared the architecture of the fugue yet, although based on the harmonization work I've been doing, I think writing a fugue with this subject should be possible. Do you agree with that?

Originally Posted by Majesty

Also, although some don't make a big deal out of parallel or direct perfect 5ths in the inner voices, I like to have them avoided if you can.

I've been taught in the Conservatory to avoid parallel fifths and octaves between any two pairs of voices. So no problem here. However, for direct 5ths and octaves, we were taught to only avoid them between outer voices. The rationale being that these are actually causing "hidden" parallel 5ths and that those are very difficult to spot if they occur between the inner voices. I can try to avoid them though, but since I'm not used to do so, I may not spot them whilst writing, and fixing that after the fact can be tough.

Originally Posted by Majesty

Anyway, I it looks good. I will take a much closer look at it and add more comments if I have any.

Ooops, I noticed a mistake (probably a typo of mine) in the harmonization of the subject, when it is in the bass. In measure 1 (second system), beat 5, the upper voices must be D A D, not D B D or that is outlining a VI chord in D in the 6:4 position... As it is preceded by a +4 chord in D, it must go to I6, not VI6:4...

Do you agree?

Actually, I don't agree.

If you'd like to change the upper chord to D A D then that's fine. But what you have on beat 5 works because the preceeding chord is a V4 chord and
2
chord resolves without issue. Your leading tone, C# resolves naturally leading up to the tonic, your Supertonic can resolve up to the 3rd scale degree or down to the 1st scale degree which in this case it has resolved down, and your Dominant (A) could have remained to create I6 as you mentioned but leading the A up to B gives the resolution/cadence a decpetive feeling which you continue to resolve onward.

Originally Posted by Majesty

Actually, I don't agree.
If you'd like to change the upper chord to D A D then that's fine. But what you have on beat 5 works because the preceeding chord is a V4:2 chord and chord resolves without issue.

(Funny how anglo-saxons use 4:2 to name the 3rd inversion of V7 and we use +4 in France -- we also use +6 instead of 4:3, and name V7 as 7:+, the '+' indicating the leading note, here the 3rd of the chord. I'm using ":" as the vertical separator, because formatting vertically is almost impossible here).

You're right that my voice leading was correct. Still, I'm forming a VI of D in the 6:4 position. Perhaps I'm too analytical here and I should just view this chord as a "passing" chord, since all voices move forward conjointly up to the V6:5/ of G.

OK, I'll keep the orginal version then and stick to the deceptive resolution.

Any comments on my previous post?

Originally Posted by Majesty

You can continue with the others.

Here are the remaining harmonizations. I have added an harmonization of the homonym subject in D minor as well.

I've changed the mixed interval inversion when it is in the bass, putting a natural A instead of A# at the end of bar 1. This allowed a different harmonic path to be used. This should be OK given the nature of the inversion...

I have a few open questions in previous posts, and a new one for you:

In the mixed inversion harmonization, when subject is in the soprano, I have possibly used harmony syncopation at the bar1 / bar2 crossing: I end on the I of F# major, which is really the V of B minor, and I immediately make it clear that it's a V and not a I at the next bar because the subject adds the 7th (E). Is this permissible in that context or must I rework that part?

Thanks for your guidance.

Sorry, I've been really busy. I'll take a look at these and post comments