Harmony

Of course, I'm working in an entirely different idiom, but the basic idea of this admonition should still apply:

Counterpoint first, harmony after.

This is to say that harmony should follow counterpoint, rather than trying to fit counterpoint into a harmonic T-P------D---T progression. Harmony is a slave to counterpoint, rather than its own entity. This will keep your music from being just a system of glorified block chords with a melody or two.

btw, there's a little plug-in in Finale (I don't know if you're using full Finale or just Notepad) that checks for parallels.

it only works on 2 staves that are contiguous, but you can check S and A, then A and T, T and B, etc... and if you really need to, you can always just move your staves around.

if you try it on 3 or more staves it screws up, telling you that there are // 5ths everywhere.

But as far as I know, parallels aren't TOTALLY forbidden, are they?

But as far as I know, parallels aren't TOTALLY forbidden, are they?

Unless being used for 'special effect' but, for the purposes of my situation, they are forbidden, piston even refers to them as 'forbidden parallels'.

Of course, I'm working in an entirely different idiom, but the basic idea of this admonition should still apply:

Counterpoint first, harmony after.

This is to say that harmony should follow counterpoint, rather than trying to fit counterpoint into a harmonic T-P------D---T progression. Harmony is a slave to counterpoint, rather than its own entity. This will keep your music from being just a system of glorified block chords with a melody or two.

Some time ago, before i found this place, i purchased Fux's study of counterpoint and worked through it, and i found the only difference between 5th species in four parts and four part harmony is the harmonic consideration. When i finish Harmony i plan to start working through Kent Kennan's counterpoint as i started it but found I kept writing bad progressions because for his counterpoint you need to have studied harmony first.

But as far as I know, parallels aren't TOTALLY forbidden, are they?

it partially depends on the school.

some are more leniant, some stricter.

most will forbid any and all parallel 5ths and 8ves in 4-part exercises.

I believe it is best to avoid any and all parallel 5ths and octaves (as well as direct octaves and fifths between outer voices) while doing exercises, as this excessive strictness does help develop an eye and ear to the problems these can cause.

there are a few exceptions where there are natural parallel 5ths in the resolution of certain chords, but they are very specific exceptions.

when we say parallels are forbidden, just to make this perfectly clear, it applies ONLY to 5ths and 8ves.

In strict 4-part textures, those parallel 5ths and 8ves create holes in the sound. Once you are completely comfortable with the principle, it then becomes much easier to spot where you might create the same empty effect in a denser texture and where you might get away with it.

For example, my own music is not strictly tonal (it certainly doesn't apply the rules of classical 4-part harmony nor baroque counterpoint), yet many of the principles are still applicable on a larger scale. I still check for parallel 8ves or 5ths in certain textures where I KNOW they will diminish the effect of what I'm writing. I still check for certain types of contrapuntal errors especially between outer voices or in very exposed passages, again, where I KNOW that the effect I'm looking for would be diminished by those errors.

Once you know what the errors are, you can CHOOSE to use them as a conscious effect, or not. This is the only way to truly assimilate the past into the present. By figuring out how to apply those rules to what you are doing.

Medieval organum had lots of parallel 5ths, as a matter of fact, other than the opening notes and final cadence, it was all in parallel 5ths. Debussy knew of this effect. He knew WHY parallel 5ths were considered wrong in certain types of harmony. And he consciously chose to apply the parallel intervals to create exactly what he wanted - an echo of sorts, of the medieval organum. However, if you examine a lot of Debussy, you notice that in his triadic music (that based on harmonic progression rather than those where the effect of parallelism is prime) parallel 5ths and 8ves are very carefully controlled.

(one reason we see so many parallel 5ths in Debussy and other contemporary music, is the principle of doubling a note with an overtone. this is particularly prevalent in the tenor and bass registers, where you might get a harmonic sequence and the entire bass line consists of parallel 5ths. if you examine the upper voices, however, you find that more classical voice leading is applied. When analyzing that bass line you wouldn't consider the 5ths as melodic, but as a form of "doubling" and added density.)

hope this helped.

a lesson we learn in counterpoint, which is easily applicable (I don't mean it's easy to apply, but that it applies readily) to 4-part harmony is that it is best to avoid returning on the same note multiple times within a short period of time.

for example, if the phrase is C - D - E

then decorating it C -b-c-d-e- D -c-d-e-d-c- E just returns too much on the same notes.

there are times you can't help yourself because of material you are given, but this still forces you to seek out alternatives what will give the most interest melodically.

an example of returning on the same notes, but having it work, is the Barber Adagio. the reason it works is that the main motif DOES turn on itself, but the phrase ends with a dropping 3rd, then the subsequant phrase breaks from that turning and gives us a straightforward scalar pattern. In other words, where the ear expects that turn pattern, he gives us a scale.

Another reason the Barber works is that it's not a counterpoint/harmony exercise in 6 bars :angry:

he has LOOOONG breathe.

The best investment you could make is to purchase the volumes of Bach chorals. They're really inexpensive (a couple of dollars a piece) and contain 200 chorals each.

They're a little difficult to understand at first, there are so many non-harmonic notes in them. But they are worth the study. especially FOR those non-harmonic notes.

Would it not make sense to first familierise myself with the concepts of harmony and their application before diving into Bach? I was planning on, when I'd finished reading and learning my two textbooks, purchasing this book and the 371 harmonised chorales as i alreay have the 15 inventions and sinfonias to give me a better understanding of Bach's harmony and counterpoint styles.

What think you?

I don't think you need to study the inventions and sinfonias unless you are studying counterpoint. And even then, Bach broke the rules more often than he did stick to them.

The chorals of Bach are the ultimate expression of strict 4-part writing.

Heavily studying Bach is only really useful if you want to write music LIKE Bach's.

the best thing for you is to study classical harmony and counterpoint from other texts, get the principles down, see how they were applied by other more contemporary composers, then apply them to your own music. The aim of studying music is not generally to remain stuck in the past, but to learn and evolve and express yourself in a language that is relevant to your times.

Once you have the principles of harmony, voice-leading and counterpoint well on their way to being assimilated, you start by doing analysis of scores of the 19th century. In that analysis you don't stop on details of counterpoint or voice-leading, but on larger form and harmonic usage. From this you see where it leads, how you can apply it. Besides, much of what is important in harmony study is useless when taken out of context. A progression that is preparatory to a modulation is difficult to understand without the context of that modulation. This is where the analysis of larger works comes in. Then you start to understand the balance of phrases, of sections, of movements.

I don't think you need to study the inventions and sinfonias unless you are studying counterpoint. And even then, Bach broke the rules more often than he did stick to them.

Which i am, when i finish harmony, I have kent kennan's counterpoint and plan to start on it when I've finished Harmony, and can anyone recommend a good text on orchestration?

Schoenberg has a good one, and Berlioz pretty much wrote the original orchestration book.

does anyone have an opinion on RK's principles of orchestration? I've seen that it's online somewhere and could probably find it easily enough. Anyone read/studied from it?

does anyone have an opinion on RK's principles of orchestration? I've seen that it's online somewhere and could probably find it easily enough. Anyone read/studied from it?

it's interesting, but it IS from 100 years ago.

you might be better off with something a little more atuned to the modern orchestra.

I'll worry about that later, I've got to get through the ones I've got first