# Four-part writing - Need your opinion



## rbarata

Hello, my friends

I'm a new user here. I was not sure if this was the best forum for me since I'm a beginner and people here seem to be more experienced in theory than I am.
Anyway, I'm learning four-part writing and doing a lot of exercises. So, I would like to have your opinion about my answers.

In the following exercise the soprano and bass are given and can't be changed. Also, as you can see, all triads are in root position.

Thanks


----------



## Vasks

Looks good enough for beginner. There's a way through alternate doubling to avoid the big tenor leap in measure 1. 

I'm not sure why the Roman numerals are written as all major though.


----------



## rbarata

Vasks said:


> There's a way through alternate doubling to avoid the big tenor leap in measure 1.


Can you, please, explain?

Thank you



Vasks said:


> I'm not sure why the Roman numerals are written as all major though.


The software I'm using works like that. Not my choice.


----------



## Vasks

Sure, as the first chord (tonic) moves to the second chord (subdominant), have the alto step up to the pitch "G" and have the tenor skip down a third to the pitch "B". Doubling the fifth (instead of doubling the root) of any major or minor chord is always a good alternative to a large leap. Your leap in this instance was OK because it was a perfect 5th and it neither crossed voices nor created a gap of over an octave between tenor and alto.


----------



## rbarata

Ok, understood.

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post my doubts one after the other, with different exercises but, anyway, here it goes...










Another exercise, again the bass and soprano are given and can't be changed. This one I've found it more difficult since the soprano is very low and the bass very high, which caused me a lot of crossed voices issues. I could manage all of them, altough not in the best way possible...and there's a remaining problem in the last two chords: consecutive 5ths between bass and tenor.

Need your oppinion about what changes can be done here?

Thank you


----------



## EdwardBast

rbarata said:


> Need your oppinion about what changes can be done here?
> 
> Thank you


In the second to the last chord, Bach probably would have put the C# in the tenor and an E in the alto. He didn't care about the leading tone going up in final cadences, although your theory teacher might. If you do this you should be able to cite instances where Bach did it as well.

By the way, you should probably own a copy of all of Bach's chorales in four part harmonization, (edited by Riemenschneider). Great reference source and source of ideas and solutions.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> In the second to the last chord, Bach probably would have put the C# in the tenor and an E in the alto. *He didn't care about the leading tone going up in final cadences, although your theory teacher might*. If you do this you should be able to cite instances where Bach did it as well.
> 
> By the way, you should probably own a copy of all of Bach's chorales in four part harmonization, (edited by Riemenschneider). Great reference source and source of ideas and solutions.


If rbarata's theory teacher knows _anything_ about Bach's harmonic resources in the chorales, he will know that the leading note at cadences (in the A or T part) will rise either a fourth (to the third of the next chord) or drop a third (to the fifth of the next chord). As EdwardBast points out, having your own copy of the Riemenschneider is essential - this is cheaply available on the web (e.g. Amazon).


----------



## Vasks

and the reason why Edward focused on the second measure is because of two serious mistakes: (1) the tenor from beat one to beat two crossed voices with the bass & (2) the tenor and bass have a parallel fifth going from beat two to beat three.

So had the alto gone from the beat one pitch "C-sharp" up a 3rd to "E" and had the tenor gone up from "A" to "C-sharp", neither of those errors would have occurred.

I'm still LOL'd at your software as (1) it omitted a Roman numeral, (2) it acknowledged in the figured bass only one of the three raised 7th steps & (3) the bass and soprano in measure two have a hidden octave (outer voices leap to create an octave)


----------



## rbarata

> If rbarata's theory teacher knows anything about Bach's harmonic resources in the chorales, he will know that the leading note at cadences (in the A or T part) will rise either a fourth (to the third of the next chord) or drop a third (to the fifth of the next chord).


I see... I didn't knew this. Thank you.



Vasks said:


> and the reason why Edward focused on the second measure is because of two serious mistakes: (1) the tenor from beat one to beat two crossed voices with the bass & (2) the tenor and bass have a parallel fifth going from beat two to beat three.


I have noticed before the parallel 5th, hence my post. About the crossed voices, in fact the software didn't signaled it. But please note that this was not a chorale exercise but a chord connection only. So, in my oppinion, this exercise was not very suitable to study Bach's style. Anyway, it was more or less possible and as long as one learns something new, that's fine.



Vasks said:


> I'm still LOL'd at your software as (1) it omitted a Roman numeral, (2) it acknowledged in the figured bass only one of the three raised 7th steps & (3) the bass and soprano in measure two have a hidden octave (outer voices leap to create an octave)


This software is freeware and obviously it has some limitations. But it's a tremendous help for my harmony studies. Please note that I dont have any theory teacher. I'm an autodidact...I know this is not the best way to learn harmony but I believe it's possible, although it may take more time.

About point 3, I think you're refering to the IV. Am I right?

Thank you for the replies.


----------



## Vasks

rbarata said:


> This software is freeware and obviously it has some limitations. But it's a tremendous help for my harmony studies. Please note that I dont have any theory teacher. I'm an autodidact...I know this is not the best way to learn harmony but I believe it's possible, although it may take more time.


It is always tricky for folks to try to teach themselves theory, no matter how bright and how musical they are. But at the same time, I understand it is not always possible to have a teacher on hand. Your software isn't terrible and I'm not suggesting you abandon using it. The best thing you can do is keep posting here and take to heart the replies/suggestions you get.


----------



## Guest

Dear rbarata,
Drop me a PM with your private email address, I just might have a handy little harmony book for you (in pdf format)! 
For copyright reasons, I never ever said that and you have never heard of me.


----------



## Vasks

_hmmm, copyrighted book, hmmmm_


----------



## rbarata

> It is always tricky for folks to try to teach themselves theory, no matter how bright and how musical they are. But at the same time, I understand it is not always possible to have a teacher on hand. Your software isn't terrible and I'm not suggesting you abandon using it. The best thing you can do is keep posting here and take to heart the replies/suggestions you get.


I know what you mean, I've experienced that myself. But it is always rewarding when you learn *and apply* something new.

I will keep posting my exercises...I think the best way is to work on exercises rather than in theoretical situations.

Thank you


----------



## Guest

Dear rbarata,
Whilst awaiting the receipt of the pdf file I mentioned above (that Vasks forced me to send to you, it's his fault, he has no respect for copyright), you might want to search out these two publications which are available (at a price) from online book retailers (or maybe freely from a good local library?) :
a) Malcolm *Boyd*, _Bach Chorale Harmonization and Instrumental Counterpoint_, Kahn & Averill, London 1999;
b) William *Lovelock*, The Harmonization of Bach's Chorales, Allans Music, Melbourne 1970.


----------



## rbarata

TalkingHead said:


> a) Malcolm *Boyd*, _Bach Chorale Harmonization and Instrumental Counterpoint_, Kahn & Averill, London 1999;
> b) William *Lovelock*, The Harmonization of Bach's Chorales, Allans Music, Melbourne 1970.


The first one I ordered it a few months ago. After 2 months I was informed it was not available so I gave up.
The second one, I will try to find it.

Thank you


----------



## rbarata

Hello, my friends

Following my exercises, in this one I got consecutive 5ths between tenor and bass.










In an attempt to solve this, I've found three possible solutions, but I'm not sure which is the best:
1 - This one solves the problem but, when possible, I would like to avoid the use of unisons. Nothing wrong with them but they seem to be an easy way to solve many problems that could be solved in better ways.










So, I've found another one, exchanging the tenor and alto's voices. This one has a problem, which is the big leap in the tenor. Although no errors are marked, this seems not very good to me.










So, to avoid this leap, I've changed the first chord. Again, I exchanged the tenor and alto's voices but I've noticed that all voices (except the bass) don't seem to be very independent. They all move in the same direction and this is also noticeable to the ear.










Which one do you think is the best choice, and why (if there isn't another one)?

Thank you


----------



## Guest

I'll leave it to others to answer your question, rbarata, but don't forget to sharpen your leading note E (as you're in F# minor).


----------



## Vasks

Your first solution is perfectly fine. Not liking it because of the "unison" is not justifiable. There's nothing wrong with two voices sharing a pitch (just make sure if they move to another chord that neither cross over each other)

Your second choice is OK, except if you do raise your 7th step ("E-sharp") then you'd have an unacceptable augmented interval ("A" up to "E-sharp")

Your third choice is as good as your first.


----------



## rbarata

Hello again



TalkingHead said:


> I'll leave it to others to answer your question, rbarata, but don't forget to sharpen your leading note E (as you're in F# minor).


Opss, you're right. Thanks. I was distracted and missed this one.

Thank you for the reply, Vasks. Sharpening the E, as it was supposed to be, forced me to find other solutions, more or less a compromise of all the ones I've presented before.

This is it:


----------



## Vasks

It IS it!!!!!


----------



## rbarata

Anyway, in the very last solution, in the previous post, although acceptable, it doesn't sound also justifiable to omit the 5th in the last chord. So, I think I'll go on from my solution 3 because there are no exceptions in use.

Using my post before, another question... usually, prior to any analysis for errors, I always look to the score in a general way to see if it is "balanced", i.e., no large leaps, movements' directions, etc. This can give me some initial indications that something is not right. I this a common practice or it depends on the person who is writing?


----------



## rbarata

> It IS it!!!!!


Now oyu made me change my mind.:lol:


----------



## Guest

rbarata said:


> Hello again
> Opss, you're right. Thanks. I was distracted and missed this one.
> 
> Thank you for the reply, Vasks. Sharpening the E, as it was supposed to be, forced me to find other solutions, more or less a compromise of all the ones I've presented before.
> 
> This is it:


Don't forget, rbarata, that Bach would let that E# in the tenor drop to C# and so have a complete chord on the tonic of the cadence.


----------



## Vasks

rbarata said:


> Anyway, in the very last solution, in the previous post, although acceptable, it doesn't sound also justifiable to omit the 5th in the last chord. So, I think I'll go on from my solution 3 because there are no exceptions in use.


A tripled root with an omitted fifth is OK, but not done frequently. So when I said "It IS it!" I wasn't recommending you do it lots of times; I was just enthusiastically saying it was acceptable. 



rbarata said:


> Using my post before, another question... usually, prior to any analysis for errors, I always look to the score in a general way to see if it is "balanced", i.e., no large leaps, movements' directions, etc. This can give me some initial indications that something is not right. I this a common practice or it depends on the person who is writing?


It depends on the individual, but to have a complete checklist of what to watch out for helps to keep yourself organized.


----------



## rbarata

TalkingHead said:


> Don't forget, rbarata, that Bach would let that E# in the tenor drop to C# and so have a complete chord on the tonic of the cadence.


If I can recall, this is the same technique used in the V7 resolution (put the leading tone in an inner part and take it down a M3 to the 5th of the tonic triad. Am I right?
And I believe it is used only in authetic cadences, right?



> I was just enthusiastically saying it was acceptable.


Ok!


----------



## rbarata

Ok, final version for the last exercise:









How about it?

Thanks


----------



## Guest

Just some finishing touches that could make it more 'Bach' (if that's your aim?) : I would modify your last three notes in the alto (F# crotchet/quarter note - E# minim/half note) to this: F# tied over to the third beat (creating a second against the soprano's G#), then dropping to the E#. What d'ya think?


----------



## Guest

Here's a little modification I've made for you, rbarata:


----------



## Vasks

TalkingHead said:


> What d'ya think?


I think non harmonic tones is a few chapters down the road.


----------



## Guest

Vasks said:


> I think non harmonic tones is a few chapters down the road.


Nah, Vasks, get them passing notes in now! Burn those good habits into the synapses without delay!


----------



## rbarata

TalkingHead said:


> What d'ya think?


I like it. I still need to do a lot more exercises before get into deeper fields.


----------



## rbarata

One question: how can I connect a I - ii, both in root position, when the thirds of both chords are in the soprano? In this case, A Major, C#-D.
I can't make it without creating too large intervals between voices.

Thanks


----------



## Mahlerian

rbarata said:


> One question: how can I connect a I - ii, both in root position, when the thirds of both chords are in the soprano? In this case, A Major, C#-D.
> I can't make it without creating too large intervals between voices.
> 
> Thanks


How's this?


----------



## Vasks

Mahlerian said:


> How's this?
> 
> View attachment 55825











Remember ,when the Roman numerals are adjacent, have all (or in this case most) upper parts move opposite the bass & you can always have a large space between bass and tenor.


----------



## rbarata

Yes, it works. I've been trying for 2 hrs... It's hard to believe how I couldn't find it, even if it was by mere chance!

Thank you, Mahlerian.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

It's rather curious that older theory came up with the idea of realising the connection between adjacent degrees as the resolution of a seventh missing it's root (when going from a lower to a higher degree) or a ninth missing it's root and third (from a higher to a lower degree). Such progressions were considered thus, a sum of two chord progressions (or an abbreviation of a three chord progression): I-ii could be interpreted as I-VI-ii. I don't know if this made it to the newer books.


----------



## rbarata

Richannes Wrahms said:


> It's rather curious that older theory came up with the idea of realising the connection between adjacent degrees as the resolution of a seventh missing it's root (when going from a lower to a higher degree) or a ninth missing it's root and third (from a higher to a lower degree). Such progressions were considered thus, a sum of two chord progressions (or an abbreviation of a three chord progression): I-ii could be interpreted as I-VI-ii. I don't know if this made it to the newer books.


Please elaborate...but be gentle. I'm a beginner!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I'd paraphrased it from the sixth chapter of a great book that you can download here: http://imslp.org/wiki/Harmonielehre_(Schoenberg,_Arnold)

You'll probably get it once you become familiar with tonal function and seventh chords. I've bolded the practical aspect of it.

*What I'm saying is that you can think of the progression I-ii as if it were the progression VI7-ii* in which you have omitted the root of the VI7 (as one can leave out a tone of a chord and still label it like the complete chord). This means you have to resolve the VI7, in the manner any 7th chord is more strongly resolved, that is by root movement up a fourth and the 7th resolves down by step to the third of the chord of resolution. This results in contrary motion between the upper voices and the bass which is the general rule. But, *according to the old interpretation what is most important is to resolve the 7th of the VI7 so in working out alternative voice leading for the I-ii progression the fifth of the I must 'resolve' down by step (it already had to, to avoid parallel fifths) and should not be dubled (which would result in parallel octaves).*


----------



## rbarata

Thank you, Richannes.

I've seen this also refered in this book: "Elementary harmony theory and practice" by Robert W. Ottman, pg 208.

Unfortunately, your link is in German, which I can't speak.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Here's in English: http://monoskop.org/images/c/cd/Schoenberg_Arnold_Theory_of_Harmony.pdf


----------

