# Book about harmony, but with serious advices how to do it?



## vegetadbz (Sep 25, 2018)

Hi.

I read few books about harmony, and each of them are not what I am looking for.

I come in with questions like...

1. If I play 3rd from triad, on violins 2 and a bit higher on violins 1 comes melody, they clash, why they clash, why you don't explain in book of harmony do not use 3rds on violins 2, use roots on violins 2, use 5ths on violins 2 or do not use 5ths on violins 2?

2. I am using 5ths on violas, cellos and basses doing roots, and if i take out cellos and basses, violas on 5ths with violins 1 playing melody are total disaster, why no one explained why is this total disaster or trash dissonance?

3. I want to get smooth harmony across the strings, can I play full triads in cello, than full triads in violas, well maybe it will give too much fat harmony?

I guess you already get what I mean, so i do not have to give further questions I have in my head...

Than I go open a book for example Walter Piston or whatever...
And none of my questions are answered, instead there is, here is how Bach, Mozart or Beethoven did it in this piece, than one of them did differently, than third did it this way, but in his other piece he did it counter of what he did in first one...yea, thanks for nothing.

What is the book that teaches on how to harmonize or give accompany to the melody in explained examples without 500 pages of notation how Bach, Mozart or Beethoven did it, that tells me can I play 3rds on violins 2, why can't, why it sounds so off if I don't have roots and just melody on violins 1 with violins 2 on 3rds and violas on 5ths etc. things, and than, what are right ways, I know there are many ways to do it, but some theory on "how it can be done" without mentioning Bach, Mozart or Beethoven etc.

Does such book even exist?
I have read few books on harmony and learn nothing.
I don't know notation, and I do not want to know notation (because I am not a professional composer, nor i will ever be, I just search for some basic ways to orchestrate.), but still I can understand books that talk about examples with notation, but at the end all what this type of books says is, you can do it however you want, and basically you can't, as I said above about 3rds on violins 2 and melody on violins 1.


----------



## bryla (Sep 25, 2018)

I guess the answer to why that book doesn't exists is: no book can tell you how to harmonize your melody because no author knows your melody. The best you can do is learn the principles and apply them to your own music. When something comes up in your music that doesn't make sense, post it here and someone can clarify.


----------



## vegetadbz (Sep 25, 2018)

bryla said:


> I guess the answer to why that book doesn't exists is: no book can tell you how to harmonize your melody because no author knows your melody. The best you can do is learn the principles and apply them to your own music. When something comes up in your music that doesn't make sense, post it here and someone can clarify.


Thank you.
I just did asked, just I am usually afraid of people calling me lazy, noob, uneducated etc. because of my questions, and i really do have many of them, for which I can not find answer nor in books, nor in video tutorials.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 25, 2018)

_Harmony_ is distinct from _Arranging_ (arranging or putting those harmonies or chord tones in a particular vertical order.) Both subjects share many principles. Your question seems more specific to arranging and more specifically, S_tring Arranging. _Books on Arranging assume a basic understanding of Harmony which it sounds like you have.

An excellent book which clearly illustrates solid string Arranging is Kent Kennan’s Instrumentation book. An orchestration book essentially which explores not just individual instruments (cello, violin etc.,) but sections such as the String or Brass sections. He uses a Bach chorale as the music to be put into those sections which brings real clarity to the many considerations in the process. Very simple, easy to understand and quite an eye opener in answering questions exactly like yours.


----------



## Farkle (Sep 25, 2018)

vegetadbz said:


> Hi.
> 
> I read few books about harmony, and each of them are not what I am looking for.
> 
> ...



For what it's worth, and it does take several lessons to explain this, but the Equal Interval System does deal with this compositionally, and very early on in the course.

Mike


----------



## Dewdman42 (Sep 25, 2018)

There are different approaches to voice leading which is what you’re talking about. If you can get your hands on the Berklee harmony and arranging text books by Nettles, I think they are pretty simple and practical approach. You used to be able to call the berklee campus book store and purchase them, they came as printed pages for a three ring binder.

The books you mentioned by piston and others are excellent but require rigorous study in order to get the most out of them. University students tyically cover that material over a 1-2 year time period.

There are many aspects to harmony, voice leading and arranging for strings that apply to your question and desire and unfortunately there aren’t many shortcuts. Alexander publishing also has some decent practical oriented books on arranging and there are others.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 25, 2018)

In re-reading your post I think I understand what the fundamental issue is: you seem to lack an understanding of basic 4 part writing and therefore writing for more than 4 parts and how that applies to a string orchestra (such as dividing the 2nd violins which you had a question about.) 

It is probably best to limit the writing to 4 parts at first and get that sounding good. If that doesn’t sound proper as compared to typical 4 part string writing found everywhere than no amount of dividing will help. Once you do have a solid 4 part texture you can experiment with dividing a single group such as the 2nd violins. Now your ears will tell you if you are maintaining the quality of the original texture.

If you limit the dividing of any single voice to 2 parts: cellos in 2; violas in 2; 1st and 2nd vlns in 2, you will have a realistic limitation. Triads in the cellos or anywhere not a good idea for learning purposes. The simpler the better because you want to have each stage very solid and sounding well.


----------



## MatFluor (Sep 25, 2018)

vegetadbz said:


> I don't know notation, and I do not want to know notation (because I am not a professional composer, nor i will ever be, I just search for some basic ways to orchestrate



Notation is not complicated to learn but reaps so many benefits, and it's not an "elitist writing system" reserved for composers.
Orchestration is an art in itself, and on the notion of "without 500 pages how Bach and Mozart did it" - but that's how it works mostly.

You see, music theory (of which orchestration is a part of) is of a descriptive nature - analyzing what the greats did and understanding why. Sure, you can go with the simple rule of thumb like "all notes of a triad should be represented" - but when you listen to greats, they often do it differently, or contrary to voice leading rules etc.
That's when these 500 pages become interesting - why did they harmonize/orchestrate it a certain way? Why not another?

And there comes notation into play, read and see how the orchestration interacts musically. It's like you would be saying "I do not want to learn to read because I'm not and never will be a professional author", but ask for silver-plate advise on dramatic writing.

Not to be harsh, but that quote from you triggered me in a way 

That said, there can be "hard and fast rules" to orchestrate the basics. But everyone has a different set of those. As for your example questions:
1. Space and intervals. A minor 2nd always is very rubby. The further the voices are apart, the less you perceive the rubbing. It has nothing to do if you can do a 3rd or a 5th there.
2. It's not a total disaster. When you leave out the third, it misses the tonal gender (major/minor). And when you then remove the root, these 5ths become the new root. Ergo your Melody on top is heard in context of the new roots
3. Maybe it will, yes. And you're doubling intervals unnecessarily. Watch out for 3rds and 5ths in such scenarios, they shouldn't be doubled - or at least not much. Melody is your king, and the orchestration and harmony with/underneath it are the servants of it.

See, all answered with answers that wouldn't make sense in an orchestration book (1 and 2 consider composition, only 3 goes into that), and some can be taken care of when you look at the score (or, if you're used to it, piano roll. I can't do that, but I know people who can).

I hope that can explain you why the orchestration books are the way they are, notation is not only for professionals, and that especially in music, all these things vary case by case. What's true and a golden rule for one piece, can take the life out of the other.


----------



## ed buller (Sep 25, 2018)

you've got it back to front. Get the harmony right then assign the notes ( parts, Sop,Alto,Tenor and Bass ) to the instruments. Usually in strings 4 part harmony is violins 1 the sop, violins 2 Alto, Viola Tenor and Celli bass with quite often the basses doubling an octave below. This always sounds good.

Ryan leech has many excellent videos:

https://music.tutsplus.com/tutorial...77.503090363.1537939699-1429880244.1537939699

if you want to use extended harmony ( 7ths 9ths 11ths etc ) just divisi the strings . Good voice leading really helps to smooth it all out but there's a place for parallel chords too:





these are just spread over the strings in two octaves . Sounds divine !



best

ed


----------



## fixxer49 (Sep 26, 2018)

ed buller said:


> you've got it back to front. Get the harmony right then assign the notes ( parts, Sop,Alto,Tenor and Bass ) to the instruments. Usually in strings 4 part harmony is violins 1 the sop, violins 2 Alto, Viola Tenor and Celli bass with quite often the basses doubling an octave below. This always sounds good.
> 
> Ryan leech has many excellent videos:
> 
> ...



ed, i'll see your ravel and raise you a stravinsky


----------



## ism (Sep 26, 2018)

Here's a slightly out there suggestion: David Huron's "Voice Leading: The Science behind the art"

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/voice-leading



Which takes traditional voice leading and demonstrates how all of the rules can be understood in terms of recent perceptual theory, which he validates with empirical musicology - which basically shows that Bach was right about everything all along.

I'm in much the same situation as yourself in that I've studied quite a bit of voice leading, but struggle to connect the 'rules' to actual music.


The point is not that Bach needs modern science to tell him that he was right, but that it helps in connecting the mechanism of the rules of harmony and voice leading, to a deeper understanding of perceptual principles of music that underly them.

Huron argues, quite convincingly I think, that even if you're not wring classical counterpoint, voice leading is still useful for any type of music in that it illuminates some very penetrating principles of human perception.

If I had to go back and study voice leading again, I'd read this book concurrently with a traditional text. Too often these course felt like a kind of dry mathematics, that I couldn't always connect to actual music practice.


Fun fact: After demonstrating that the rules of voices leading have solid motivations in the science of musical perception, Huron argues that perceptual science predicts new rules of voice leading. Which empirical musicology demonstrates the classical repertoire already obeys. So not only was Bach right about everything all along, he was right even when nobody had bothered to write down the rules so he would know he was right.


----------



## teammwrp (Sep 26, 2018)

MatFluor said:


> And there comes notation into play, read and see how the orchestration interacts musically. It's like you would be saying "I do not want to learn to read because I'm not and never will be a professional author", but ask for silver-plate advise on dramatic writing.



This


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Sep 26, 2018)

vegetadbz said:


> Hi.
> 
> I read few books about harmony, and each of them are not what I am looking for.
> 
> ...



I read not one book about harmony, shame on me. But I tell you something: I don´t feel that I missed something. Sure a book about harmony is nothing wrong though. One reminder: Harmony books are reversed engineered from good music. So by studying music and transcribing it will not make you an einstein in giving nomenclature to what you have learned, but you are able to write music. Books will teach to sort the things (which is great) but they don´t teach yuou to write cool music imo. (if you are ultimately after that..)


----------



## thevisi0nary (Sep 27, 2018)

Dave Connor said:


> _Harmony_ is distinct from _Arranging_ (arranging or putting those harmonies or chord tones in a particular vertical order.) Both subjects share many principles. Your question seems more specific to arranging and more specifically, S_tring Arranging. _Books on Arranging assume a basic understanding of Harmony which it sounds like you have.
> 
> An excellent book which clearly illustrates solid string Arranging is Kent Kennan’s Instrumentation book. An orchestration book essentially which explores not just individual instruments (cello, violin etc.,) but sections such as the String or Brass sections. He uses a Bach chorale as the music to be put into those sections which brings real clarity to the many considerations in the process. Very simple, easy to understand and quite an eye opener in answering questions exactly like yours.



Hello is the book you are referring to "The Techniques of Orchestration"? Curious because I may look into getting it!


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 27, 2018)

thevisi0nary said:


> Hello is the book you are referring to "The Techniques of Orchestration"? Curious because I may look into getting it!


Yes that’s the book. The later editions have a CD with audio examples. The great thing about the book is how compact it is and therefore easy to get around and find things. The numerous orchestrations of the same Bach chorale is highly instructive on multiple levels since they can be compared within a specific group (i.e. numerous ways of orchestrating the piece with a string section) as well as compared to another group such as Brass. But not just one brass group but brass groups of different sizes. It’s brilliant and with the CD you can hear the exact results of a specific orchestration of single and combined sections.


----------



## YaniDee (Sep 27, 2018)

I know this is about books but..This is arguably the best series on modern harmony you'll find anywhere!. Starts with (fairly ) basic stuff and moves along over 43 videos to advanced harmony with clear explanations. He also provides audio examples and Pdf files.. (also has a course on practical counterpoint)
Alan Belkin:


----------



## Maximvs (Sep 28, 2018)

YaniDee said:


> I know this is about books but..This is arguably the best series on modern harmony you'll find anywhere!. Starts with (fairly ) basic stuff and moves along over 43 videos to advanced harmony with clear explanations. He also provides audio examples and Pdf files.. (also has a course on practical counterpoint)
> Alan Belkin:



Thanks a lot for pointing this out! Cheers, Max T.


----------



## sinkd (Sep 28, 2018)

The reason that the melody you mention does not sound well when supported by the fifth of the chord is that it turns the root into a dissonant fourth above the bass note, and the third of the chord (now a sixth above the bass note) feels dissonant by association with the tonic/root. You have good ears.

I would recommend taking some time to study and write species counterpoint and some figured and _partimento _bass exercises.

Check out the voice leading sections and strict counterpoint tutorials in the Open Music Theory project. You will need to do a search for "cantus firmus examples" to find those to practice writing. You can also go straight to the source and get a copy of J.J. Fux _Gradus ad Parnassum._

http://openmusictheory.com/contents.html

Ian Stoner also has a pdf posted of a workbook accompaniment to the Alfred Mann counterpoint text. It comes up readily in a search for "cantus firmus examples" and is useful on its own:

www.ianstoner.com/pdf/fux_workbook_0.1.pdf

Here is a link to an open resource on _partimento _bass:

http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/music/gjerdingen/partimenti/aboutParti/beginnersGuide.htm

Piston and other traditional textbooks have a lot of figured bass, but I like the Bach figured and unfigured basses and melodies that are in the back of the Riemenschneider book of chorales. Jump to page 91:


----------



## careyford (Sep 28, 2018)

YaniDee said:


> I know this is about books but..This is arguably the best series on modern harmony you'll find anywhere!. Starts with (fairly ) basic stuff and moves along over 43 videos to advanced harmony with clear explanations. He also provides audio examples and Pdf files.. (also has a course on practical counterpoint)
> Alan Belkin:



His 'books' are free PDFs and quite good.


----------



## vegetadbz (Oct 1, 2018)

Thank you all for the kind answers.
Taking all advices, and going further openned up few questions to me, which I will hard time to format, because music itself is a hard language and my english is not great either, so I will use examples...







- Melody is on top.
- I get counterpoint by avoiding 2nds, 4ths and 7th intervals. (I did watched and read recommendations from here)
- I get triads by ear, and it alone following melody on nice way.

- Problems comes if I want to follow the rules...

1. Don't write parallel 5ths and octaves. (This destroys independence.)
2. Don't cross voices. (This damages integrity of line by confusing which line went where.)
3. Don't make all of the voices move in the same direction. (independence)
4. Avoid direct octaves or 5ths (8vas and 5ths approached by parallel motion) between soprano and bass. (independence)
5. Thirds and fifths of chords in the bass should not be approached and left by leap (integrity, makes the bass line weak).
6. More than an octave distance between the voices should be avoided, except between the bass and tenor. (integrity of the texture)
7. Where possible, put roots in the bass (makes for greater integrity of the bass line).
8. The 5th of the chord can be omitted if necessary, but not the root or 3rd.

And if I try to move any voice lead up, down, I will just get more mess than it looks like here.

Example, I want counterpoint on violas and 3rds on violins 2, I move thirds octave up, and counterpoint octave down, voices will cross over, I will lose independence...

The working solution I have found is...






So yeah, 5ths are gone.

And what now if I want violas to play counterpoint, and violins 2 3rds, we get this...

Watch this interval between alto and tenor...






This is so confusing...

Also my bass and soprano have parallel motion, 1st to 2nd and 6th to 7th...I noticed it too late when I already made captures.


----------



## ism (Oct 1, 2018)

To what extent do you think the the effect(s) your going for is the same as the effect(s) that the rules of voice leading are designed to assist with? 

for example, if you were to take a quick look at Ravel’s Bolero you’de see immediately that he breaks the “rules” not just occasionally but in almost every note of almost every bar. But the point is that he was never going for the kinds of perceptual streams that the rules of voice leading are abstracted to help achieve. 

As Alexander notes:



AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Harmony books are reversed engineered from good music.




And the key point here is: just what the heck is good music anyway? We know it when we hear it of course, but to compose, ultimately, in one way or another, we absolutely need to abstract some theoretical notion of just what constitutes “good” music (whether or not we want this process “theory”). 

And the big problem I have, not with theory itself, but the way it’s sometimes taught is that too often it’s presented as a kind of mathematical solution ... only no one really tells you what the hell the problem was in the first place. 

So parallel fifths, for instance - this isn’t a rule to automatically generate music, it’s a recommendation to avoid a particular type of problem. It’s a real, and even profound perceptual problem that can (I’m some situations) undermine (sometimes subtly) attempts to write (a certain type of) good music. And yes the problem can be stated as “independence” - But what what does *really* mean in the experience of hearing and writing good music. I really wish i’d been taught to really, deeply, properly understand the problem before a professor handed me a set of mathematical rules that claimed to solve the problem, but not only failed to adequately explain the problem they were supposed to solve, but actively discouraged me from ever hearing or writing any music that had this problem. Because it’s not like math where a good math student never has to explore words in which 2 + 2 = 5. You need develop the capacity ot hear ther problem as it emerges, and know when to involve your voice leading rule. Except that you’re never allowed to write music with parallels fifth, in fact your grades will suffer if you do. But writing parallel 5ths is exactly what you need to do to understand why you should’t write parallel fifths in the first place.


And just appling this rule willy nilly to get rid of parallel fifths can easily cause others problems, which are sometime easier to perceive, and sometimes subtle and sometimes problems for which there isn’t even a rule. 

So I would strongly recommend the study of voice leading, but more as a way to develop a perceptive capacity of what is “good” music (and what stands in the way of music being perceived as “good” music) than as a prescriptive recipe for good music. 

Sorry, that turned into more of a rant on my own “theory angst” than I had intended it to, but maybe it’s helpful?


----------



## vegetadbz (Oct 1, 2018)

ism said:


> To what extent do you think the the effect(s) your going for is the same as the effect(s) that the rules of voice leading are designed to assist with?
> 
> for example, if you were to take a quick look at Ravel’s Bolero you’de see immediately that he breaks the “rules” not just occasionally but in almost every note of almost every bar. But the point is that he was never going for the kinds of perceptual streams that the rules of voice leading are abstracted to help achieve.
> 
> ...


I understand all what you have said.
Rules are there to be broken, but I have a big problem with voices crossing, and big leaps where they should not be.

I am trying to follow at least two rules...
1. Bass and tenor can only have intervals bigger than octave.
2. Voices should not cross.

But as you can see from the example, if I follow up some rules with counterpoint to avoid 2nd, 4th and 7th interval, and if I take 5ths out, I am coming with only one solution where violins 1 have to be melody, violins 2 have to be counterpoint, otherwise if I try melody on violas, counter on violins 1 or 2 than I have broken even these 2 rules, Voices will cross, or there will be big leaps/intervals if I want them not to cross.


So, I am looking for solution to follow up only this two rules, but with assumption that I am starting from triad + melody above.


----------



## ed buller (Oct 1, 2018)

try this as an experiment . Play a simple chord progression in your daw. 4 voices. Limit it to triads so one voice will be doubling. Don't worry about voice leading yet. Say 8 chords. Quantize them all on 1 notes. Chord a bar. Once they are all in go through and move the notes so that the rules apply. Keep common tones in the same voice. avoid parallels . Spend time getting them to be as smooth as possible. Look for all the right things. Now cut the notes up. and move them about a bit. So instead of them all moving at the same speed and length, make suspensions and anticipations. Create lines that move against one another all the time keeping to the rules. Because you started with good chords and correct voice leading it should all sound smooth. Fiddle with it until you like it. Then do another. Start with the same chords perhaps. So you can see how many variations you can get . try making a pattern in one voice then repat it in another. Don't stress about it being right. Just get your ear tuned to what you like...

best

ed


----------



## vegetadbz (Oct 2, 2018)

ed buller said:


> try this as an experiment . Play a simple chord progression in your daw. 4 voices. Limit it to triads so one voice will be doubling. Don't worry about voice leading yet. Say 8 chords. Quantize them all on 1 notes. Chord a bar. Once they are all in go through and move the notes so that the rules apply. Keep common tones in the same voice. avoid parallels . Spend time getting them to be as smooth as possible. Look for all the right things. Now cut the notes up. and move them about a bit. So instead of them all moving at the same speed and length, make suspensions and anticipations. Create lines that move against one another all the time keeping to the rules. Because you started with good chords and correct voice leading it should all sound smooth. Fiddle with it until you like it. Then do another. Start with the same chords perhaps. So you can see how many variations you can get . try making a pattern in one voice then repat it in another. Don't stress about it being right. Just get your ear tuned to what you like...
> 
> best
> 
> ed


Thank you.
Following that up...
Root is moved 8va to be a possible melody.






Now it is moving in parallel motion, and top one should be also shaped into melody, and I want to apply "first species counterpoint writing"...-Considering 3rd and 5th to be fillers.
Avoid 2nd, 4th, 7th interval, and don't go over an octave...
Avoid writing parallel fifths or octaves (moving two voices in the same direction from one fifth or octave to another).
Avoid writing _direct fifths or octaves_ (moving two voices in the same direction to a fifth or an octave).
https://www.ars-nova.com/cpmanual/writefirstspecies.htm

How, this "wall of 5ths" pushing me already to break the rule, or I would cross voice with 5ths, and than on strings it will have totally uncomfortable dissonance for ears, I almost have no possibility to go under 8va between bass and melody, everywhere it is 1 or 2 notes possibility?

Maybe I just can not apply all this rules at once?
Do I mix "one way of writting" with "another way of writting", so I am catching up this problem?

It is not a problem for me to have a melody, to get good triads for it, to have different time of notes, problem is the vertical arranging, with rules:
- Have bass and melody in counterpoint style ( Melodic keyboard style voice leading - http://openmusictheory.com/melodicKeyboardStyle.html )
- Apply tonal harmony - Tonal harmony by Stefan Kostka. (1. Bass and tenor can only have intervals bigger than octave. 2. Voices should not cross etc.)

Somewhere is a catch, and i think something very easy that its missed in a book and counter style writting, but I can't figure it out.
I usually come with melody and roots being similar. And my process goes:
1. Melody
2. Triads
I can not figure melody from triads, but triads to melody. (That is how my brain works.)

Maybe, my bad is that counterpoint as first species counterpoint writting, and tonal harmony way of writting and melodic keyboard style voice leading just do not fit together somewhy.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Oct 2, 2018)

ism said:


> To what extent do you think the the effect(s) your going for is the same as the effect(s) that the rules of voice leading are designed to assist with?
> 
> for example, if you were to take a quick look at Ravel’s Bolero you’de see immediately that he breaks the “rules” not just occasionally but in almost every note of almost every bar. But the point is that he was never going for the kinds of perceptual streams that the rules of voice leading are abstracted to help achieve.
> 
> ...




Good post Ism, especially the last paragraph. Good voice leading is also important for individual parts to make musical sense. You can always subvert any rules or standard practice at a later date when you have understood the principle. Understanding said principles will ironically enable you to become freer in your writing if you have the inclination and ability.


----------



## ed buller (Oct 2, 2018)

vegetadbz said:


> Thank you.
> Following that up...
> Root is moved 8va to be a possible melody.
> 
> ...





i think your getting slightly ahead of yourself. First off the chord progression has a few classic mistakes . C moving to D is all parallels which is forbidden. Also you repeat chords in the same position. Again not allowed. No of course these are just arbitray rules for writing strict counterpoint. You can do what you like really. So let's go about this another way. Do you want to learn how to write strict counterpoint ? or are you looking to be able to figure out how to write a top line ?

best

e


----------



## ed buller (Oct 2, 2018)

this is the preferred way of moving from c to d


----------



## ism (Oct 2, 2018)

vegetadbz said:


> I am trying to follow at least two rules...
> 1. Bass and tenor can only have intervals bigger than octave.
> 2. Voices should not cross.




But why these rules? And why at this point in your composition process?

As I said, there are important perceptual concepts underlying these rules, but how do they affect the perception of "good" sounding music in your piece.

It's not that rules are made to be broke, its that rules are made to be helpful.

Look at Bach and you'd think the world might end if two streams were ever allowed to cross. But then Mahler is much more relaxed about it.

And there's probably a lot you could say about this shift, but I think Bach is writing a different kind of music in a time when the collective perception of music is a bit different. So I think it's unlikely that Bach is just a stickler for rules and Mahler is a bit rebellious. Rather, something changes from the Baroque to the Late Romantic, in both how music is perceived, and how it's performed, which doesn't invalid the insights underlying the rules, but it textures the contexts of their application. For instance if one line is playing a wide vibrato and on another non-vib, then perceptually, line crossing is less of a problem, as crossing lines are less likely to "bounce" off each other, which is probably not a technique Bach would have used, but its something I could see in a more modern cinematic composition. Modern stereo imaging can also prevent lines from bouncing off each other if they cross.


Not saying you're wrong to be concerned about crossing, but I do think that sometimes these sorts of discussions risk putting the horse before the cart.


----------



## gregh (Oct 2, 2018)

If you are wanting to write counterpoint then the advice here willbe good. But another approach alngside that might be useful. That is to understand a little on how we interpret sound in to music, into melodies and so on. 
May be worthwhile, she has a website as well with many examples. But this psychology of jmusic approach helps in understanding why counterpoint rules exist, ie what they are trying to achive, as well as giving understanding that can act as its own set of rules


----------



## ism (Oct 2, 2018)

gregh said:


> If you are wanting to write counterpoint then the advice here willbe good. But another approach alngside that might be useful. That is to understand a little on how we interpret sound in to music, into melodies and so on.
> May be worthwhile, she has a website as well with many examples. But this psychology of jmusic approach helps in understanding why counterpoint rules exist, ie what they are trying to achive, as well as giving understanding that can act as its own set of rules




That's a very interesting approach. The David Huron book I mentioned above would really complement this.


----------



## gregh (Oct 2, 2018)

ism said:


> That's a very interesting approach. The David Huron book I mentioned above would really complement this.


Good link to the Huron, and great posts from you ism.


----------



## vegetadbz (Oct 3, 2018)

ed buller said:


> i think your getting slightly ahead of yourself. First off the chord progression has a few classic mistakes . C moving to D is all parallels which is forbidden. Also you repeat chords in the same position. Again not allowed. No of course these are just arbitray rules for writing strict counterpoint. You can do what you like really. So let's go about this another way. Do you want to learn how to write strict counterpoint ? or are you looking to be able to figure out how to write a top line ?
> 
> best
> 
> e


Thank you.
Chord repetition there is because there is where melody starts again / that is second part of a similar melody, maybe I could pick some other chord, but I am used to do it with 4 chords in a loop.

And in my example everything is actually in parallel motion.

Here is the same chord progression I have done to try avoid parallel motion...
Video:

What I did...
1. Made triad chord progression.
2. Take out bass or roots as they are and duplicated them octave bellow. (I do not like to have new root on inverted chords, they sound bad as a main voice lead/root voice lead.)
3. Locked bass or root which is duplicated down. (Means no more changes to that.)
4. Back to triads and invert them watching 3 voices from triad + duplicated un-inverted root an octave bellow
4a. I have 4 voices, inverted, and now watching them I have no idea which are 5ths if I want to omit them, so I guess I should do that at beggining before even inverting chords.
4b. I have no melody, but I have 4 voices...added melody on top, is this now considered to be 5 parts writting, and I should have done omitted the 5ths if I wanted to double root an octave bellow.
...
Problems:
1. Soprano and Alto have more than octave leaps on some parts.
2. If we take Alto to take an counter point, or view it as an counter point, we have a problems, because C to F leap (C is alto-our new counterpoint, F is melody) on second chord is interval of 4, so one more rule is broken, and that is to avoid 2nd, 4th and 7th intervals on counterpoint in first species.
If I want to avid this, I could change melody notes...ohw ait...
Problems in me:
1. I like my melody and I don't want to change particular notes because of some rule, because I will lose what I like in that melody
...
Does not matter, I can approach other way, and make that C, become a new note, hmm, but which one, ohh well it can go on F, than it would be an 8va and thats ok for counterpoint....
Awesome job...oh wait...our work to avoid parallel motion is ruined...





Thanks for your time and time of everyone else, but as you can see, if i understand rules well and I apply them, I am in circle of rules, making one rule good, another rule comes, fixing new one old one comes back.
One all day I just moved these notes up down, and I don't understand how to apply this 3 rules together, I can not do it one whole day, how I would than create a track...
Phew...


----------



## MatFluor (Oct 3, 2018)

Don't think of all this as "rules" but rather as "suggestions". And as long as you're not doing counterpoint (as in species counterpoint) you're good to go.

Did you ever think about private lessons for all this stuff? Learning on your own can be hard - and a pros advice is golden.


----------



## vegetadbz (Oct 3, 2018)

MatFluor said:


> Don't think of all this as "rules" but rather as "suggestions". And as long as you're not doing counterpoint (as in species counterpoint) you're good to go.
> 
> Did you ever think about private lessons for all this stuff? Learning on your own can be hard - and a pros advice is golden.



I did not think about private lessons because I do this as a hobby.
I do not plan to become professional composer or producer, but I also don't want to be bad at it.
I would also learn notation and other stuff, but I do not have that much time to spend on learning just everything, so I am trying to apply some basic tonal and modern harmony stuff I read from the books to what I already know.

That is fine, I can avoid some suggestions / rules, but I am trying to stick to them as much as possible.


Also, I have one other question...
It is about ostinatos, they usually move up down fast using triad notes, but do you use inverted chord notes for ostinatos, or you use how they were at the begining.
I know that both can be used, but in inverted ones I have feeling like ostinato would be spread to much over the range, and it is better to have it closer like root to fifth, also it won't damage independence.
And, is ostinato considered as a voice lead, and also has to have its own place in range?
Is everything inside considered as a voice lead?
And than you can have voices doubling, as trumpet can double violins 1, horn can go octave down but use melody to support trumpet and violins which are octave up, Tuba double bass, or at least play simialr as bass.

Third is, doubling, octaving same voices in composition is all fine while instruments have different shape of sound (different freqs), but if they glitch each to other should be avoided?
For example I noticed if I have clarinet and oboe at the same time, this is not a good compination.


----------



## ed buller (Oct 3, 2018)

It's really up to you. This to me sounds sort of medieval .Very pleasant. But no it's not using the standard approach to counterpoint but is that important ? If you want to try and do counterpoint a good rule is that the melody should be playing a chord tone but not always the root. The second chord F is also a root. So this destroys the feeling of independence . This is what makes it sounds medieval. Now it's up to you if you want that effect. If you don't then the F is NOT an option . It will Have to be a Bb Maj ( as we are in D minor ) . Also when you start the second half you again use the Dm chord. Your missing an opportunity to have a clear contrast from the first part. G min would solve this. 

But to be honest all this is only useful if you want to write in this manner .There is nothing wrong with what you have, But if you'd like to learn to use the rules for counterpoint then you'll have to start from scratch .

For instance quite often the moldy is a result of the chords. I would try this approach just to get started. write a melody. Decide on which notes you want a chord. Using the key as a guide ( d min ) available chords are. ( capitals for maj ) d, e dim, F, g , a, B , C...this isn't really minor in the classical sense. It's a mode. Aoelion . if you want a real minor the G would be a maj to allow a leading tone. 

Once you have your melody find ANOTHER note from the chords that will be a chord tone. So in your example the first chord is fine as a d as established the key. But the second can only be a B . You've already used the D. So this makes your selection simpler. But....you might end up having to tweak your melody. It's all very very fiddly . But worth getting right IF you want that effect. BACH did this in his sleep. If you really want to get to grips with it do this course. It's brilliant :

https://scoreclub.net/course/practical-counterpoint/


Best 

ed


----------



## YaniDee (Oct 3, 2018)

If you really want to learn the "rules' how can you avoid learning notation? The whole world of music is right there in black & white. It is not much harder than looking at colored lines on a 'Piano Roll".


----------



## vegetadbz (Oct 3, 2018)

ed buller said:


> It's really up to you. This to me sounds sort of medieval .Very pleasant. But no it's not using the standard approach to counterpoint but is that important ? If you want to try and do counterpoint a good rule is that the melody should be playing a chord tone but not always the root. The second chord F is also a root. So this destroys the feeling of independence . This is what makes it sounds medieval. Now it's up to you if you want that effect. If you don't then the F is NOT an option . It will Have to be a Bb Maj ( as we are in D minor ) . Also when you start the second half you again use the Dm chord. Your missing an opportunity to have a clear contrast from the first part. G min would solve this.
> 
> But to be honest all this is only useful if you want to write in this manner .There is nothing wrong with what you have, But if you'd like to learn to use the rules for counterpoint then you'll have to start from scratch .
> 
> ...


Thank you. I wish world has more people like you. You use so simple way to explain things, as you understand my level of knowledge.
Your last point was to not use always root note and melody note as same when composing, and that was the catch worth discovery.  

Anyway, I tried to get counter melody how I would made it not respecting any rule, or respecting just few, and this is what I got.

First loop, counter is not playing, and second it does.

It sounds  with this counter melody.


----------



## ed buller (Oct 4, 2018)

Ricks Videos are free and very very good:



best

ed


----------



## smallberries (Oct 4, 2018)

MatFluor said:


> Did you ever think about private lessons for all this stuff? Learning on your own can be hard - and a pros advice is golden.



I've been thinking about that alot. How does one go about finding a teacher? Also: in-person or mailing assignments back and forth? I'd love a correspondence course with graded assignments if anyone knows of such.


----------



## MatFluor (Oct 4, 2018)

smallberries said:


> I've been thinking about that alot. How does one go about finding a teacher? Also: in-person or mailing assignments back and forth? I'd love a correspondence course with graded assignments if anyone knows of such.



I'm currently studying EIS. I can imagine a lot of private courses are similar - you get 1-on-1 lessons over Skype or similar (or if you're near each other, in person). You ask questions, you get some stuff taught. You then also can do assignments and exercises, compose something short for critique - a private teacher can really get into what you need, where you are and where you want to go and can make a fitting "way" for you. Be it EIS or normal private lessons. So, think of such things as proper lessons, like piano lessons - just in composition or orchestration.


----------



## Michael Antrum (Oct 7, 2018)

smallberries said:


> I've been thinking about that alot. How does one go about finding a teacher? Also: in-person or mailing assignments back and forth? I'd love a correspondence course with graded assignments if anyone knows of such.



https://thinkspaceeducation.com/hm1/


----------



## smallberries (Oct 7, 2018)

mikeybabes said:


> https://thinkspaceeducation.com/hm1/


Thanks for the link! I've found an even better option for anyone living in San Francisco: City College has classroom sequences in harmony and composition, and like all CCSF offerings the tuition is waived for city residents!


----------



## ed buller (Oct 7, 2018)

If you live in SF pm me. I know a fantastic teacher.

e


----------



## ism (Oct 17, 2018)

Sorry to keep banging on this drum, but a quote from David Huron’s book reminded my of this thread:

‘It bears repeating that these preference rules represent fallible simplifications of the general principle. They are useful mainly for students who have little experience recognizing commonplace musical patterns or schematic ...’

Which I think reinforces my sense while they ‘rules’ of voice leading (Huron is vary careful to always label them ‘preference rules’, as he discusses different musical goals underlying the various rules and how they sometimes conflict) are grounded in deeper musical (ie human, perceptual) principles. Treating them as rules risks fetishizing and actually inhibiting a student’s development of an understanding of these all important underlying principles.

Case in point - rather that agonizing over the application of rules in the example above as a kind of frustrated mathimatical problem that struggles to admit a single solution that obeys all the rules simultaneously, why not try a bunch of different voice leadings. Then you can compare how they each sound, analyze what rules each violates, and build a sense of what the bennefits or costs of obeying or not obeying each rule might bel how they work together or fail to work together. And in this way develop a sense of what the principles underlying that give rise to these rules really mean, musically.

It not that the above analysis isn’t useful. It’s just that I feel like the rules are being used as a kind of ‘cheat sheet’ that risks obscuring learning musical principles, rather that facilitating a deeper understanding.

In the 17th century, the perceptual science didn’t exist to give language to these underlying principles. So it made perfect sense to abstract ‘rules’ that expressed these deep musical intuitions that good composes could intuitively feel and hear. And it’s not that having the modern scientific language is going to make composing good music any easier, but it seems to me an immensely powerful should make learning - properly learning - the principle of voice leading more efficient. 

(Of course, the context of this is entirely my own angst at all those voice leading assignment I ground through as if they were dry as dust mathematical problems).


----------

