2-part invention in counterpoint

Hi everyone. So far, I have studied with Percy Goetschius books and am practicing small 2-part inventions (about 1 minute long) as taught in his Elementary Counterpoint and Applied Counterpoint books. I wonder if there are other beginners working on this and willing to share our works. My goal is to use counterpoint with freedom, yet in a sensible way. I use Myriad Melody Assistant piano. Here is one example, with a motive from Handel (F maj). I apologize for the poor sound quality (I'll try to find a good alternative for my .myr files). Thanks!  

Welcome to the forums.

Can you provide a score to your music? I'd be able to provide better feedback with a score.

12 hours ago, muchen_ said:

Welcome to the forums.

Can you provide a score to your music? I'd be able to provide better feedback with a score.

 

I have made changes to measure 13, last note: C3 instead of C. Leave the C in Bass, for modulation.

Sounds good.
The 13th bar is strange, but I see you've made a correction.
I think there's some pretty good imitative treatment, characteristic of the Inventions.
So many colours confuse me a bit. I suppose they highlight imitations or motifs, but as I'm colour blind, I can't tell.
Best regards.
 

5 hours ago, Luis Hernández said:

Sounds good.
The 13th bar is strange, but I see you've made a correction.
I think there's some pretty good imitative treatment, characteristic of the Inventions.
So many colours confuse me a bit. I suppose they highlight imitations or motifs, but as I'm colour blind, I can't tell.
Best regards.
 

 

Thanks. Yes the colours in the pdf help working and recognizing the motives. I've put it in b&W (below) 😉. After over 1600 small exercises in melody, harmony and counterpoint (all with 6 Goetschius books) + 25 invention, I don't know what 'level' I am at. I've never had feedback until now!

I don't think this theme was meant to be treated as the usual antecedent/consequent imitation at the octave, like in Bach’s two-part Inventions. The subject comes from a harpsichord suite by Sheeles (not by Händel); the ascending F–G–A–B is actually a codetta leading to the real answer a fifth above. As for your solution, it keeps hitting the octave far too often — you should avoid that, as it’s too harsh for two‑part counterpoint (and there are a few voice‑leading mistakes as well). The modulations to related keys could be prepared more effectively, for example by using simple sequences built from fragments of the theme. Introducing the inversion was a good idea; it adds a bit of variety.

43 minutes ago, Fermata said:

I don't think this theme was meant to be treated as the usual antecedent/consequent imitation at the octave, like in Bach’s two-part Inventions. The subject comes from a harpsichord suite by Sheeles (not by Händel); the ascending F–G–A–B is actually a codetta leading to the real answer a fifth above. As for your solution, it keeps hitting the octave far too often — you should avoid that, as it’s too harsh for two‑part counterpoint (and there are a few voice‑leading mistakes as well). The modulations to related keys could be prepared more effectively, for example by using simple sequences built from fragments of the theme. Introducing the inversion was a good idea; it adds a bit of variety.

 

This was just an exercise from Applied Counterpoint book by Prof. Percy Goetschius. I made the inventory of octaves and there are 30! lol.  Here are the details.

too many 8ves  

1st beat, Primary accent 
5 in V or V7 = me6,9,12,15,18,24,27,30.These are good according to Goetschius.
4 in IV =me13, 16,25(?)

3rd beat, secondary accent
8 in I = me19, 25, 31
3 in I = me5, 8, 26 NOT GOOD

2nd beat, ternary accent 
8 in I = me17
6 in IV = me7, 28 BAD

4th beat, ternary accent
8 in I = me11, 14
2 in I = me12, 15, 18 BAD because foreign to the chord.
2 in vii = me30

other unaccented fraction locations:
me10: G is either doubled leading tone or doubled chord 7th. 
me22: F is doubled chord 7th
According to Goetschius, these can be tolerated in fast tempo and at unaccented fractions. Is this fast enough?

Any other mistakes I could learn from? Thanks.  

There are some problematic parallels, such as the G–A octaves in m. 6 (this corresponds to m. 7 in your score — the notation software misnumbered the measures because the initial upbeat should not be counted as a full measure), or the E–F♯ parallels in m. 9 [m. 10 in the score], and so on.

Also, you can’t reuse the countermelody that you introduce just after the lower voice’s entry simply by transposing it, because it is not written in invertible counterpoint. For example, the fifth on the fourth beat of m. 4 [m. 5] becomes a fourth when the two voices are inverted. You can see the result of this in m. 7 [m. 8], where an A–D fourth appears. The interval of a fourth is always treated as a dissonance in traditional two‑part counterpoint. A passing fourth may sometimes be tolerated in the instrumental style, though.

You may also want to revise some of the crotchets in the countermelody to avoid frequent dissonant clashes with the passing quavers of the theme (see the example below).

2 hours ago, Fermata said:

There are some problematic parallels, such as the G–A octaves in m. 6 (this corresponds to m. 7 in your score — the notation software misnumbered the measures because the initial upbeat should not be counted as a full measure), or the E–F♯ parallels in m. 9 [m. 10 in the score], and so on.

Also, you can’t reuse the countermelody that you introduce just after the lower voice’s entry simply by transposing it, because it is not written in invertible counterpoint. For example, the fifth on the fourth beat of m. 4 [m. 5] becomes a fourth when the two voices are inverted. You can see the result of this in m. 7 [m. 8], where an A–D fourth appears. The interval of a fourth is always treated as a dissonance in traditional two‑part counterpoint. A passing fourth may sometimes be tolerated in the instrumental style, though.

You may also want to revise some of the crotchets in the countermelody to avoid frequent dissonant clashes with the passing quavers of the theme (see the example below).

 

Oh boy! parallel octaves! I didn't check these on fractions of a beat. BAD.

{A,D} inverted to {D,A} on 3rd beat is bad indeed. 

'Passing quavers': They are not essential by definition. Especially useless when they make an interval of a P4th! I guess I found it gave stamina and authority to the sequence in the motive. (NB, your picture above is not of mine). So I looked at the "frequent dissonant clashes with the passing quavers" in my exercise. I found one p4th (me24, to be corrected!), one p5th (me6, bad?), and 2 8ves (me9, 21, dissonant?). Is there more?

Conclusion:
I was so carried away and happy with my experience and creative process for that piece (developing the 'horizontal mirror' of the motive, what you call 'inversion' and that PC calls 'contrary motion'), that I didn't pay attention (deficit!) to all those defects and even neglected to check! That happens when I spend too much time on something, I just lose perspective. I'm definitely not a MATURE COMPOSER yet, lol. Also I knew the modulatory episodes were almost absent. I have to develop good episodes even when the tempo is fast and am afraid to lose momentum. Thanks for your feedback.
 

By the issue of 'passing quavers,' I meant the following. Take a look at the attached example. As you can see, the G quaver connects two consonant intervals, while it forms a seventh with the upper voice, which is a dissonant interval. Technically this is not incorrect, but musically it's very disadvantageous — since we're dealing with two‑voice counterpoint, the musical texture is very 'thin,' and this dissonant friction becomes quite audible. The same problem occurs with the other G as well.

Regarding the A marked with the exclamation mark: the harmony is too 'empty' this way. If you put the subject into the bass and try to harmonize it on piano, it's obvious that an F-major (first-inversion) chord should be implied there. 

I think most of these issues (including the ones I mentioned earlier) can be corrected fairly easily.