# I am working on a three voice counterpoint exercise



## djdillyc

Hello,

I am working on a three-voice






counterpoint exercise. The top line was given to me. I am not sure if I did it correctly. What would you do to fix what I did wrong?


----------



## EdwardBast

In the style of what century are you supposed to be writing? Whichever it is, you have more than one instance of parallel perfect intervals, all voices moving in the same direction, and an anomalous dissonant interval with no justification. It's going to require a comprehensive rewrite to correct these errors. Better to start over than to futz with this version.

Presuming this is 18thc counterpoint, I would suggest that when you start over, you begin by first writing a solid bass line using lots of contrary motion with respect to the cantus firmus. When the cantus firmus moves up, favor moving the bass line down, when it moves down, favor moving the bass line up. Obviously, you can't do this all the time. The point is that contrary motion in the outer parts is generally strong and satisfying. Another thing to consider when writing the bass line is to think harmonically, trying to use the roots of triads at important points. Doing these things maximizes the options for the inner part. Write the inner part after you've finished a strong bass line.


----------



## Bwv 1080

also the top 2 voices repeatedly cross one another, and the lack of a leading tone in the final cadence is awkward. The 2-1 in the soprano makes it difficult, so putting the leading tone in the bass (no reason for a perfect cadence here) would work.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Just for laughs, here is a possible solution. Been forever since I did one of these, was kind of fun


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Bwv 1080 said:


> View attachment 152091
> 
> 
> Just for laughs, here is a possible solution. Been forever since I did one of these, was kind of fun


Not sure I get the humour in this solution. Is it the conssecutive oblique motion in the alto of m.3? I was thought oblique motion was often favorable.

I think they're fun too! It's like solving a puzzle and it's so satisfying when you crack the code. And even though they're just exercises and not real music, they can make some pleasing melodies and counterpoint sometimes!


----------



## Bwv 1080

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Not sure I get the humour in this solution. Is it the conssecutive oblique motion in the alto of m.3? I was thought oblique motion was often favorable.
> 
> I think they're fun too! It's like solving a puzzle and it's so satisfying when you crack the code. And even though they're just exercises and not real music, they can make some pleasing melodies and counterpoint sometimes!


No, was an attempt a legit realization, not a joke


----------



## Vasks

EdwardBast said:


> Write the inner part after you've finished a strong bass line.


Yep! The only thing I'd add is stay away from second inversions unless you know it's one of the few "correct" type (ie. cadential, passing or auxiliary)


----------



## EdwardBast

I can never resist these exercises either. I wrote this before my initial response to the OP but withheld it because I didn't want to do his homework for him.  Since that boat has sailed, here it is. I tried for canon between alto and soprano. The first bar almost worked at a one beat interval but I had to shift to a two beat interval in the second before it fell apart:


----------



## mikeh375

...Hell, why not, it might be good for the OP to see some alternative solutions. Like Bwv, it's been a long time since I did this sort of exercise and so as I'm in friendly and pleasant company.
I cheated and turned the last note into a dotted minim, please don't mark me down...

(The alto quaver obscures the soprano dotted minim in the last bar. I know there's a keyboard move in Sibelius to deal with this, but couldn't immediately recall it).

View attachment Untitled.docx


----------



## EdwardBast

You and your fancy quavers. I think we're supposed to be on first species, Mike.


----------



## mikeh375

EdwardBast said:


> You and your fancy quavers. I think we're supposed to be on first species, Mike.


LOL...oops I should have realised. My bad.... I jumped unthinking into a sort of automatic Riemenschneider mode so I hope I've managed to rectify it somewhat below...


----------

