# Part writing or the importance of not being lazy – complete with fancy pictures and sound



## muk

Have you ever heard of some arcane device called ‘part writing’? Ever wondered if it could help you improve your writing? If the answer to the second question is no then congratulations. You can save yourself the hassle of reading through this and just have a quick glance at the fancy pictures below. If you did, the following hopefully helps in hearing and understanding what the benefits of learning proper part writing can be. After this completely unnecessary preamble, ‘let’s jump right into it’, as the youtubers say.


We start with a simple little melody that I wrote. Have a look at the first fancy picture below, and try to imagine how it sounds.












Now take a listen:

https://app.box.com/s/dzponeiua8n0alisa84weba0jk092w57
Melody

It’s a bit underwhelming on its own I feel. It needs a nice accompaniment. Depending on how you write you will encounter this situation rather a lot. You have just come up with a melody, and now you need to write an accompaniment. That is exactly where part writing comes into place. Or not. Now let us find out what the difference is between the two.


One way of solving the task is firing up your DAW, loading an ensemble patch, and hacking away at your keyboard. It could then look something like this:







If you are a sensitive person this is a little hard to look at. If you have any strength left, brace yourself and give a listen:

https://app.box.com/s/hut49w0fow9morsafy9ym1b3urzed6rk
Theme ensemble patch

Maybe I should make a poll about who made it all the way through. But I fear the result. Plain awful, isn’t it? Believe me, I have wasted no energy in trying to make this sound extra bad. It’s simply the result of using an ensemble patch, and having the exact same cc1 curve on all instruments.


How can this be improved upon? By not being lazy and playing each part individually. The notes stay exactly the same. Here is how that sounds:

https://app.box.com/s/d77yeuv2gyq5juakt6hn2yym3vcznf6k
Theme parts played individually


I am reluctant to use the word ‘better’. Let’s settle on ‘a whole less bad’ instead. But why doesn’t it sound good yet? Productionwise I have not been lazy, and used the exact same care I usually do. Each line is played individually, has its own cc1 curve, and got reasonable tweaks. What is still missing?


The answer is, and you probably guessed it, part writing. There is no part writing to speak of in this example. The voice leading is a mess. The chords are connected in awkward clunky manners.

That’s the risk of hacking away at a piano and not checking the results. The melody is there, the harmonies are ok. But the movement of the voices, i.e. the connecting of the chords is wrong.


If you are not schooled in music theory you might not be able to make out the problems in the score. But I hope that you are able to hear that the result doesn’t sound good. For example, listen to the first bar only. I don’t find much at fault with the samples or the way they are used. Despite all that it sounds somehow pale, it’s not lively and it doesn’t sound full.


Here’s why: as you see all the voices are moving in the same direction. Up. That is a safe option for a part writing disaster. Violins 2 move in parallel octaves with the basses (celli and double basses). You can’t make them out as an individual voice that way. So, even though there are four individual sections playing (for the sake of ease let’s count celli and basses as only one section, as they often move together in unison or one octave apart), you can’t tell apart violins 2 and bassi. That’s why parallel octaves sound bad between individual voices.

To make the situation worse there are parallel fifths between violins 1 and violas. And with parallel fifths it is much the same as with parallel octaves.


This explains why it sounds flat. There could be four individual voices playing. But there are only two distinguishable (violins 1 and bassi). And these both move in the same direction, which sounds rather boring.


At long last, let’s hear how this melody could sound with a proper accompaniment. In this example, the part writing errors from above are avoided, and some other 'tricks' of voice leading are applied. First the sheet music (and don’t worry too much if you can’t make out the difference with your eyes only. That is something that everybody can learn):










And the audio:

https://app.box.com/s/e56o8563q0yri7s1la0e3ejble4ajhzx
Theme proper part writing

I hope you agree with me that this is the best sounding version by far. Now the strings sound much fuller, like a proper string orchestra. You can make out individual voices if you listen for it, and the overall impression is less boring I hope.
The difference between this one and the third audio example is exactly the difference that learning part writing can make. I can’t list the rules of proper part writing here, and it would be of little use. There are no shortcuts to learning it. You need to invest time and attention studying it. What I am trying to convey with this post is that it can be a worthwhile investment.


----------



## muk

Bonus post for all who made it all the way through to here. Some simple guidelines that will help avoid the worst problems in part writing:


Don’t write parallel fifths between individual voices.

Don’t write parallel octaves between individual voices.

There are three types of movement for an individual voice: moving down, moving up, staying on the same note. Always try to have at least two different types of movement present in your four voices (i.e. don’t lead all voices upwards or downwards at the same time).

When two chords share a common tone, try to connect them by having the common tone in one voice (this voice will stay on the same note for both chords).

Your voices always want to move by the smallest possible interval. If they can stay on the same note, they want to stay on the same note.


----------



## Daryl

muk said:


> Don’t write parallel octaves between individual voices


Except that you already did.


----------



## Alatar

Made it all the way and enjoyed it! 
Have to say though: The version with all voices in parallel has its merits. It sound "church like" to me. Which can be good or bad, depending on the context.


----------



## Rodney Money

How did I do, brother? I know there is at least one parallel 5th at the end on the word "alma," but that was a deliberate, "Screw it! It sounds good," moment, lol. I tried avoiding it throughout the rest of the song, but at the end resistance was futile. Wonderful article, my friend. I enjoyed it immensely. Concerning the sound, normally I go for the warm, choral sound in a passage like this, but I needed it to sound like a marching band/ drum and bugle corps this time.

I know most people say that music should always come straight from the heart, but my friends, sometimes the heart needs a little help from the head. Last year during Easter season one of my friends from college who later became a priest was working on a new piece for the upcoming services. He had a natural melodic and harmonic talent, but he did not understand why the choral parts did not sound that well. I asked him, "Can I please show you by simply working on 8 measures?" After he heard my example, he became a believer also. Sorry, no score, I simply just wrote it down and played it through, all in just 15 minutes or so with no editing in the sound either. There are no parallel 5ths, but because of his melody there is one tritone, but I like it. It gives the passage a mystical, spiritual effect.
https://app.box.com/s/bqgfye0qr48y3um9vvpzkzofrloc53ku


----------



## Niel

muk said:


> Don’t write parallel octaves between individual voices.
> Always try to have at least two different types of movement present in your four voices (i.e. don’t lead all voices upwards or downwards at the same time).





Spoiler


----------



## muk

Daryl said:


> Except that you already did.



I hate when that happens. Which is probably why it happens everytime. Duly corrected.
Thanks Alatar. Now you mention it the melody could probably work in church style. But in that case, personally I would want to work out these features consistently.

Edit: thanks for pointing out the places Niel. Looks like my post was somewhat superfluos, given that you all seem to be well versed in part writing


----------



## muk

Great piece Rodney, I love it. The consecutive fifth at the end didn't bother me at all. That's the thing with part writing. There's no hard set rules, but guidelines. Most of the great composers wrote consecutive 5/8s here and there. Brahm's even had a sketchbook where he collected parallel 5/8s he found in great compositions. The difference to my example above is that these composers knew full well why they were writing it that way.


----------



## Niel

Rodney Money said:


> How did I do, brother? I know there is at least one parallel 5th at the end on the word "alma," but that was a deliberate, "Screw it! It sounds good," moment, lol. I tried avoiding it throughout the rest of the song, but at the end resistance was futile. Wonderful article, my friend. I enjoyed it immensely. Concerning the sound, normally I go for the warm, choral sound in a passage like this, but I needed it to sound like a marching band/ drum and bugle corps this time.
> 
> I know most people say that music should always come straight from the heart, but my friends, sometimes the heart needs a little help from the head. Last year during Easter season one of my friends from college who later became a priest was working on a new piece for the upcoming services. He had a natural melodic and harmonic talent, but he did not understand why the choral parts did not sound that well. I asked him, "Can I please show you by simply working on 8 measures?" After he heard my example, he became a believer also. Sorry, no score, I simply just wrote it down and played it through, all in just 15 minutes or so with no editing in the sound either. There are no parallel 5ths, but because of his melody there is one tritone, but I like it. It gives the passage a mystical, spiritual effect.
> https://app.box.com/s/bqgfye0qr48y3um9vvpzkzofrloc53ku





Spoiler


----------



## Rodney Money

Niel said:


> Spoiler


Great job! I don't mind the parallel 8vas when they accur in the melody and the bass, because that's how the melody goes, and that's the position that I want the bass to be in, mostly in root. I remembered that the original had more minor chords that hid the 5ths and 8vas more (back in 2000,) but I felt the chords made the whole piece sound too sad. Thank ya for taking a look, that was fun. I remembered why I had several 5ths also. It was because I wanted the harmony to be tight, and it is always problematic when the melody goes low, especially below the staff.


----------



## Niel

Rodney Money said:


> Great job! I don't mind the parallel 8vas when they accur in the melody and the bass, because that's how the melody goes, and that's the position that I want the bass to be in, mostly in root. I remembered that the original had more minor chords that hid the 5ths and 8vas more (back in 2000,) but I felt the chords made the whole piece sound



There are some passing notes leading to parallel octaves too, but I didn't mark it because


Rodney Money said:


> "Screw it! It sounds good"



Rules are rules and music is music.
Good job as always, mr. Money!


----------



## wst3

Great post, and I agree whole-heartedly with all of it except the already noted "it is ok to break the rules some times!"

Most of the work I am most proud of resulted from working on paper (well, in Finale these days) and thinking about what the different parts are doing. I will use parallel octaves to reinforce, and sometimes I'll use parallel fifths or octaves as a pivot. I know that officially that's considered weak, but sometimes it just sounds right to me.

Thanks for a great post!


----------



## Daryl

If it sounds good, it is good. The difficulty is getting to the stage where your tastes and experience are sufficient to know when it sounds good, and not winceable. Is that even a word?


----------



## Rodney Money

Niel said:


> There are some passing notes leading to parallel octaves too, but I didn't mark it because
> 
> 
> Rules are rules and music is music.
> Good job as always, mr. Money!


Haha, thank you! After I finish my trumpet concerto, if it ever does get finish, I want to go back and see what I can change. I've always wanted to turn this into something more than just their alma mater.


----------



## muk

There's great feedback already. What I'd be genuinely interested to hear is what people who haven't studied part writing yet make of the opening post. Do you hear the difference between the tracks? And do you have a preference between them? Most of all I hoped to reach people who don't know all about part writing yet, and tried to give a short impression of what it is and what it does. If anything is unclear just ask away.


----------



## Alatar

I for one did not know part writing. So that was enlightening to read.
Already my comment you have (see post above).
Are there more rules I can learn? Maybe an internet page, where I can learn all those things?


----------



## byzantium

Thanks muk for taking the time out to post this educational set of posts. I guess I knew most of the concepts and probably intuitively try to apply them by ear, but it's great to hear the difference and the reason behind these 'rules' (and the consequence of not applying them), and to show the progression as you have done, and to hear the difference from the single melody through the 'more-simply-applied' accompaniment to the more complex/thoughtful part-writing examples. Gracias.


----------



## muk

Thank you guys. Good to hear that you are interested in learning more about it Alatar. There are more rules, for example about which chord tones to double and which not, how to best resolve dissonance etc. And then there are exceptions from these rules to know about.
Unfortunately I don't know any internet resources where you could learn it. Maybe somebody else can help us out here.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

Great post. I also find that when I focus on the voice leading rather than hacking at the keyboard I get better results. I've found that the easiest way to get out of voice leading problems and find the best solution is to avoid hidden 5ths and octaves. Most people don't bother (wasn't even taught about in my university theory classes) and then get stuck with other problems with parallel motion or doublings.


----------



## Lawson.

muk said:


> Bonus post for all who made it all the way through to here. Some simple guidelines that will help avoid the worst problems in part writing:
> 
> 
> Don’t write parallel fifths between individual voices.
> 
> Don’t write parallel octaves between individual voices.
> 
> There are three types of movement for an individual voice: moving down, moving up, staying on the same note. Always try to have at least two different types of movement present in your four voices (i.e. don’t lead all voices upwards or downwards at the same time).
> 
> When two chords share a common tone, try to connect them by having the common tone in one voice (this voice will stay on the same note for both chords).
> 
> Your voices always want to move by the smallest possible interval. If they can stay on the same note, they want to stay on the same note.



Don't forget one of the most important ones that should never ever get broken:

The seventh (and ninth and eleventh and thirteenth if we're getting technical) always resolves down!


----------



## Paul T McGraw

Thank you @muk @Rodney Money and @Niel for the above. There is a reason why professional football players continue to practice blocking and tackling every week. Composers also still need to practice the basics regularly. Thanks for the examples.


----------



## synergy543

muk et all, thanks for the thread. Two questions,

1) What books on this subject did you use/recommend?

2) *Warning - loaded question:* What happens when you get to Impressionism? Do you throw the baby out with the bath water? 

In Ravel's Tombe Le Courperin, Forlorn (7m02s) for example, it doesn't sound like he's following all the part-writing theory rules, yet it sounds SO good to my ears. Is this the exception or is he still following theory. Early on in the piece (opening section) he's clearly following conventional part-writing but Forlorn seems different. I haven't analyzed it yet but any ideas on what's going on here?


----------



## ed buller

Ravel and Debussy both loved Planing chords ....Part writing rules in the trash by then !

e


----------



## synergy543

ed buller said:


> Part writing rules in the trash by then !


I never heard the term "planing" before, thanks. I understand about chords and parrallel rules out the window. However, with the melody in Forlorn, it doesn't sound like part writing rules are completely gone. There is a cohesive structure to the melody that must be following some sort of rule-based set? No? Intuitively, I can sense some structural patterns to the melody although I don't know what they are.


----------



## ed buller

well there's lots of things. The repeated motif. Both rhythmically and intervalically. It sounds modal but with a twist . Ravel and Debussy both used compound cyclical collections. Basically bit's of modes stuck together . First tetrachord Dorian second Phrygian ....then perhaps rotated one step. Clever buggers. A lot of what you hear is that sort of intervalic hierarchy but perhaps harmonised conventionally . But this is all a guess as i haven't analysed it. A good book is "Music and twentieth century tonality" by Paolo Susan and Elliot Antokoletz. Lot's of Ravel analysis .


e


----------



## synergy543

ed buller said:


> A good book is "Music and twentieth century tonality" by Paolo Susan and Elliot Antokoletz. Lot's of Ravel analysis .


Thanks, added to my Amazon list.


----------



## muk

Lawson. said:


> The seventh (and ninth and eleventh and thirteenth if we're getting technical) always resolves down!



That's more technical already than I wanted it to be. At this level things get more complicated, and more than I thought necessary to demonstrate the pure basics (for example, the major seventh resolves up, there are exceptions for the leading note when it is in a middle voice, and so on). But of course, it is an important rule for part writing. And I hope some people got interested enough to learn about it.

Very true, Paul!

Good question synergy543. Ed answered it nicely. Debussy used parallel fifhts motion a lot. As Alatar mentioned it can have a church like and/or relaxing sound quality. It is a different stylistic device. It is not strict part writing, nor does it want to be. So it's rules are not applicable for that.


----------



## marco berco

The best thing to do in matter to break the traditional harmonic and contrapuntal rules is to learn them before, the more you now them, the best you can break them afterwhile.

If one wants to apply the traditional harmonic style, let say for example in the Bach or Mozart style, it is the most difficult task as you have to refer to the past, and during this area nobody knows about parallel 5th or Major 7th coming without any preparation and so on, then you have to write just like you never heard about modern music.

In a way, writing in the old classical style looks to me more difficult (a lot of rules and forbidden rules to sound like it was before) than writing in a modern 21th century style where almost everything is permitted as long as it sounds good to the ears. Old styles need more... "learning curve".

About the parallel 5th, it is only an issue with the old classical styles, not with the end of the 19th century and 20th century, worst is the parallel octaves between melody and bass, only used if it is a doubling to reinforce melody or bass but effect is flat if used to harmonize the voices.

Today, one can write symphonic music with sampled libraries if one have a good taste and good inspiration and good work, just being self teaching. But if one wants to write in the style of the Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and other great old style composers, better is to take some years of traditional harmony, fugue and counterpoint studies with a very competent teacher...

To conclude, I would say that all is possible as there is clearly no unique rules and it belongs to every one to do is best for the best result as possible.


----------



## Studio E

This is a great thread/lesson. Thank you so much!


----------



## Hannes_F

synergy543 said:


> I never heard the term "planing" before, thanks. I understand about chords and parrallel rules out the window. However, with the melody in Forlorn, it doesn't sound like part writing rules are completely gone. There is a cohesive structure to the melody that must be following some sort of rule-based set? No? Intuitively, I can sense some structural patterns to the melody although I don't know what they are.



These pararallel fifths, octaves and stuff are still according to the rules ... if we understand the principles behind the rules, that is.

We want to avoid sudden parallel fifths and octaves in order to keep the voices independent and not losing voice count by one merging into the other which might irritate the listener. Huh, where is the alto voice? It used to have it's own life but just for two seconds it vanishes into a color to the tenor voice (and the both together make an unwanted emphasis in the context, too).

So the principle behind the rule is that parallel fifths and octaves make voices blend into one sound and the rule of avoiding that in four-part harmony is only one concretisation (sp?) of that principle.

However there are occasions where we want exactly that - no individual voices but monolithic entities. Fanfares would be one example, power chords another. There it is very appropriate to use parallels. Guitar-chord style accompagnement would be one more example, and Ravel uses that here at times.


----------



## Saxer

Anything 'ethnic flavour' uses parallel fifth too, and 'powerchords' are used in lots of effective ways (also in an orchestra) to make the root fatter. Same in jazz chords: the low brass in a big band plays parallel fifth half of the time.

In film music there's often this kind of 'dirty counterpoint' (I just call it so for myself). Independent voices move in a musical but not in a classical way. Film music is kind of different anyway as most of the time you have to avoid a tonica resolution as it would set a heavy emotional mark. Most cues end with dissonances, open chords or in unison. So the traditional voice leading doesn't work there very good.

On the other hand you can immediately recognize if this non traditional voice leading is kind of random or amateurish. The 'good taste' of traditional voice leading goes beyond the strict classical style. Actually I even don't know why.


----------



## Hannes_F

Saxer said:


> On the other hand you can immediately recognize if this non traditional voice leading is kind of random or amateurish. The 'good taste' of traditional voice leading goes beyond the strict classical style. Actually I even don't know why.


Here is a suggestion for one part of an answer (one aspect only):

Starting from the principle I referred to in the last post it is all a play of collectivity vs. individuality. If we stick to that we fare better than strictly following rules.

That means: On one hand we want to have the voices to work together as a collective. On the other hand we want to give them a certain amount of individuality. Arbitrary parallel fifths can, for acoustical reasons, disturb the balance between individuality and collectivity. However that depends on the actual instruments (their harmonics) and also on the pitch range where this happens.

Usually the different choirs in the orchestra (strings, winds, brass, perc, piano) are blending well between themselves and less when mixed. A flute and a trombone will blend less easily than violas and violin 2. So you can get away with arbitrary parallel fifths between a flute and a trombone easier than within the strings.

However there are exceptions, especially in the lower middle range. A viola section and one or two horn horns can blend quite well. The devices that probably blend the most are divisi muted strings sections, divisi (single voiced) muted brass, and piano (as a device for itself).


----------



## wbacer

Great discussion, it's really refreshing to read a thread that actually talks about music and not about comparing libraries. Although that's also important, this get's at the heart of what we do.


----------



## Chandler

Hannes_F said:


> Here is a suggestion for one part of an answer (one aspect only):
> 
> Starting from the principle I referred to in the last post it is all a play of collectivity vs. individuality. If we stick to that we fare better than strictly following rules.
> 
> That means: On one hand we want to have the voices to work together as a collective. On the other hand we want to give them a certain amount of individuality. Arbitrary parallel fifths can, for acoustical reasons, disturb the balance between individuality and collectivity. However that depends on the actual instruments (their harmonics) and also on the pitch range where this happens.
> 
> Usually the different choirs in the orchestra (strings, winds, brass, perc, piano) are blending well between themselves and less when mixed. A flute and a trombone will blend less easily than violas and violin 2. So you can get away with arbitrary parallel fifths between a flute and a trombone easier than within the strings.
> 
> However there are exceptions, especially in the lower middle range. A viola section and one or two horn horns can blend quite well. The devices that probably blend the most are divisi muted strings sections, divisi (single voiced) muted brass, and piano (as a device for itself).



This is a great post. IMO it is important to know why to do something instead of just "do this" or "don't do this". I imagine the reason Debussy choose the abandon these part writing rules is because he wanted to get rid of the independent sound of different parts and create more of a blend, perhaps to parallel the blended textures of painters such as Monet. Of course that is just speculation on my part.

Most of the time when you hear parallel octaves and 5ths it is because they want 2 voices to sound like 1 powerful voice instead of 2 independent ones. I doubt Richie Blackmore cared about voice separation when writing the riff for smoke on the water. 

Of course as said in the first post it doesn't always sound so hot, for traditional harmonic writing. It certainly doesn't sound good when you mix it at random, like I often do when I'm not paying attention while writing.

This is a great topic.


----------



## sinkd

Saxer said:


> The 'good taste' of traditional voice leading goes beyond the strict classical style.


This is very true. Once one invokes a polyphonic/contrapuntal voice-leading in any kind of style, it is jarring to me to hear non-traditional ("bad") voice-leading. But unfortunately, many do not hear it as "wrong."  Many composers would simply say that that is "how they want it sound." Which of course, makes it unassailable for anyone who wants to criticize technique. To me this is like setting out to write a poem in French, but then ignoring (out of ignorance) all of the elegance and nuance of the language you claim to be adopting.


----------



## PhJ

Lawson. said:


> Don't forget one of the most important ones that should never ever get broken:
> 
> The seventh (and ninth and eleventh and thirteenth if we're getting technical) always resolves down!



Almost always, no ?






Nice thread Muk !


----------



## sinkd

PhJ said:


> Almost always, no ?


Second inversion, passing 10ths with the bass prolonging tonic A maj. Not really a chordal seventh. (Look at the D in the tenor voice in the next measure) Mozart almost NEVER resolves a true dissonant chordal seventh (with the bass) up, especially as part of a dominant (V7) seventh. A passing V4/3 would be the exception, but that motion is governed by parallel consonant tenths, as you have highlighted.


----------



## Dave Connor

PhJ said:


> Almost always, no ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice thread Muk !


Those are parallel 6th chords which are permissable in general with special consideration for the 6/4 chord since it's a form of dominant. In that example, even if you consider the Em/B a minor 6/4 chord (questionable) it is used as a stepwise passing chord to another 6th chord. Precisely the allowed exception to the rules concerning the 6/4.

I don't think about this stuff I just remember my lessons. As to parallel 5ths, as many have said, when exposed in a traditional 4 part texture they can weaken the structure and call attention to themselves (poor resonance.) In other contexts including orchestral, they can be glorious.


----------



## PhJ

Ah, sorry about the picture cropping, the g is sharp. You know the piece  (Mozart A Maj K331)
I just remembered this being the textbook example I had of an exception (V4/3) where the 7th goes up.
(parts of) Beethoven's Pastoral was given for an example of // 5ths and octaves, iirc.


----------



## Dave Connor

PhJ said:


> Ah, sorry about the picture cropping, the g is sharp. You know the piece  (Mozart A Maj K331)
> I just remembered this being the textbook example I had of an exception (V4/3) where the 7th goes up.
> (parts of) Beethoven's Pastoral was given for an example of // 5ths and octaves, iirc.


Got it: g#. He's giving primacy to the melody which can override just about anything (including avoidance of doubling the 3rd in the treble when it's in the bass of a 1/6 chord.) In fact the rule I just sighted seems to have won in Mozart's mind (ears.) He could have easily included and resolved to C in the following chord {keeping the E top melody note) but then he would have _doubled the 3rd in the bass on a I6 chord_ (for a total of three bass notes in the chord.) So he chose resonance over formula which all great composers do.


----------



## muk

Here is a real-world example that is a bit puzzling to me. Just for sketching, Trevor Morris used an ensemble patch in this example (which is the equivalent to the ensemble patch audio example in the opening post - if sounding much better here):



He then proceeded to playing in individual lines (equivalent to the 'theme parts played individually' example):



As far as I can tell this is the final mockup version of the track, now with brass, choir, and percussion added:



What puzzles me about this is that the part-writing is rather sketchy, and to me that's clearly audible. Am I the only one bothered by this? I reckon that this piece was recorded with live players later on. It's possible that they changed some of the voice leading for the recording. Still, the chord progressions in this example don't sound good to my ears because of the part writing. But maybe that's just me. Or can you make out a reason why he might be using that particular voice leading here?


----------



## willie45

muk said:


> There's great feedback already. What I'd be genuinely interested to hear is what people who haven't studied part writing yet make of the opening post. Do you hear the difference between the tracks? And do you have a preference between them? Most of all I hoped to reach people who don't know all about part writing yet, and tried to give a short impression of what it is and what it does. If anything is unclear just ask away.




I’m your man. I know nothing of this stuff but could clearly hear the differences you illustrated. I am looking for help with this subject having just started working with Logic and virtual instruments during lockdown.

My father was a Church Choirmaster so I grew up listening to different vocal parts. I also learned piano as a child but never even scratched the surface of this stuff. My theory is sadly lacking.

Your examples fascinated me and your tips for part writing were helpful and I wish there was a readily available resource for learning more

Anyway I just joined this forum the other day and came across this so a big ( and very belated ) thank you for sharing.


----------



## Saxer

I think it depends on the style you are writing in. The example above is not a western classical style so you shouldn't expect a classical voice leading.

The golden age classical film orchestras were western musicians but while comping movies they had to mimic a lot of styles. Typical Western movie music has a lot of elements from Irish and Scottish folk music. It's more or less just Country Music played by an orchestra. Same with all kind of ethno styles like the parallel fourth when the Indians appear or the ostinatos for native tribes. Big parallel chords for historic epic films. And later the jazz influence with a different polyphonic approach: upper structure triads, parallel fifth throughout in voicings, four voice outlined melodies, a wider acceptance of dissonance etc.

So by faking styles of other peoples or ages or pop musicians who "don't know the correct way to play orchestral music" they established a pool of new styles in that era. That's a part of the film music orchestra language today.

Bad taste happens mostly in mixing this styles up without knowing. But pure classical voice leading results in classical sounding music. There aren't a lot of movies today where this would be the right choice.

btw: I love good voice leading.


----------



## FuzyDunlop

Saxer said:


> But pure classical voice leading results in classical sounding music. There aren't a lot of movies today where this would be the right choice.



I think that's all there is to it. If you want your music to sound centuries old, then you can do that. But even in a movie about the 17th century, strict 17th century-sounding music is not going to move a modern audience in the way they're used to being moved by modern film music.


----------



## Uiroo

muk said:


> Here is a real-world example that is a bit puzzling to me. Just for sketching, Trevor Morris used an ensemble patch in this example (which is the equivalent to the ensemble patch audio example in the opening post - if sounding much better here):
> 
> 
> 
> He then proceeded to playing in individual lines (equivalent to the 'theme parts played individually' example):
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell this is the final mockup version of the track, now with brass, choir, and percussion added:
> 
> 
> 
> What puzzles me about this is that the part-writing is rather sketchy, and to me that's clearly audible. Am I the only one bothered by this? I reckon that this piece was recorded with live players later on. It's possible that they changed some of the voice leading for the recording. Still, the chord progressions in this example don't sound good to my ears because of the part writing. But maybe that's just me. Or can you make out a reason why he might be using that particular voice leading here?




I think the less "smooth" the voice-leading is, the more dramatic it often tends to sound.
With this otherworldy-vibe, I think the voice-leading doesn't need to be super smooth and delicate.


----------



## Pantonal

FuzyDunlop said:


> I think that's all there is to it. If you want your music to sound centuries old, then you can do that. But even in a movie about the 17th century, strict 17th century-sounding music is not going to move a modern audience in the way they're used to being moved by modern film music.


You're assuming the use of triadic harmony. You've also assumed the context of music for media and you've made it seem like music that avoids parallels can't be emotionally engaging to a contemporary audience. I don't know you, but lately I've become very frustrated with the 'all intellectual approaches are BS' crowd. Have we really dumbed down the world? In a dumbed down world don't you think being smarter might be a competitive advantage?

In my experience avoiding most parallels makes even more modern harmony sound smoother and more elegant. Also they're easier to avoid in a more modern context. There is a place for parallels as they have a unique sound, but using them inadvertently just sounds like you don't know what you're doing. Still most people will never hear it so why bother? Maybe, because the musicians will know.


----------



## FuzyDunlop

Pantonal said:


> You're assuming the use of triadic harmony. You've also assumed the context of music for media and you've made it seem like music that avoids parallels can't be emotionally engaging to a contemporary audience. I don't know you, but lately I've become very frustrated with the 'all intellectual approaches are BS' crowd. Have we really dumbed down the world? In a dumbed down world don't you think being smarter might be a competitive advantage?



I didn't assume the context of music for media. That's literally what we're talking about- Trevor Morris's score posted above. 

Of course I don't think it's bullshit. I also don't think it's gospel. Other people in this thread have more eloquently phrased the idea.


----------



## muk

J.T. said:


> The effect the composer (Trevor Morris) is going for in the video posted above is not one where c.p.p. voice leading would be applicable.



Well I disagree. In my opinion proper part writing very much applies for this kind of writing. It is basic strings writing. Chords, with a melody on top. Proper part writing very much applies here, as there is nothing else going on than moving from one chord to another, between a strict number of voices. The explanation that I can imagine that at this point there is something in the pictures that warranted it. On it's own, to me it sounds clumsy and bad.

As to parallel fifth in the classical literature, there are many places where they occur, for various reasons. Mendelssohn, for instance, used them deliberately to characterize a rural scene as archaic.
Brahms had a notebook where he notated the parallel fifths/eights he had found in classical scores, together with an explanation why he thought they were used there.


----------



## Alexandre

muk said:


> There's great feedback already. What I'd be genuinely interested to hear is what people who haven't studied part writing yet make of the opening post. Do you hear the difference between the tracks? And do you have a preference between them? Most of all I hoped to reach people who don't know all about part writing yet, and tried to give a short impression of what it is and what it does. If anything is unclear just ask away.


A few years late to the party but obviously a timeless subject and to answer your question: Yes i absolutely hear a difference and appreciate this post about part writing as I know next to nothing about music theory but can hear much more than I "know", if I may say! A big thanks for this generous and enlightening post!!


----------



## mikrokosmiko

muk said:


> Well I disagree. In my opinion proper part writing very much applies for this kind of writing. It is basic strings writing. Chords, with a melody on top. Proper part writing very much applies here, as there is nothing else going on than moving from one chord to another, between a strict number of voices. The explanation that I can imagine that at this point there is something in the pictures that warranted it. On it's own, to me it sounds clumsy and bad.
> 
> As to parallel fifth in the classical literature, there are many places where they occur, for various reasons. Mendelssohn, for instance, used them deliberately to characterize a rural scene as archaic.
> Brahms had a notebook where he notated the parallel fifths/eights he had found in classical scores, together with an explanation why he thought they were used there.


Is that notebook available in the net? Would love to look at it


----------



## muk

mikrokosmiko said:


> Is that notebook available in the net? Would love to look at it


Not to my knowledge. It's an interesting document for sure, well worth a visit to the nearest university library.


----------



## qkrgusdb33

muk said:


> Great piece Rodney, I love it. The consecutive fifth at the end didn't bother me at all. That's the thing with part writing. There's no hard set rules, but guidelines. Most of the great composers wrote consecutive 5/8s here and there. Brahm's even had a sketchbook where he collected parallel 5/8s he found in great compositions. The difference to my example above is that these composers knew full well why they were writing it that way.


Can I ask " when " those situations were when composers used parallel 5th or 8th ?
I find it hard to keep the parallels away when I'm accompanying a vocal melody with a keyboard and bass. As more notes comes up in the music and the melody moves more freely instead of more less movements such as these string scores, parallels always occur somewhere...


----------



## MauroPantin

qkrgusdb33 said:


> Can I ask " when " those situations were when composers used parallel 5th or 8th ?


This was a confusing thing for me too until I studied counterpoint and orchestration. I find it astounding that this is not something that is said out loud every time this topic comes up, because it is massively confusing for a lot of folk, especially people who are starting their journey into voice leading and part writing.

Parallel 8ves are used ALL THE TIME. Grab just about any orchestral score out there and you have an 80% chance of seeing Violin I doubled at the octave in the Flutes. BUT they are playing the same part. The octave is just an overtone doubling or a regular doubling at the 8ve.

Parallel 5ths are also used ALL THE TIME. 90% of rock music, and a lot of pop as well, is full of them. BUT there's a reason it's mainly used there: It's got a very distinctive sound that one would not consider "delicate" or "subtle". Sort of aggressive, strong, very apt for rock music. Orchestral? It depends. What's your metaphor? If that's the effect you want, then parallel 5ths are a great tool! Still, you need to understand that writing parallel 5ths on a bass part, as an example, is not part writing. There is no independence of the voices, it's just "thickening" the voice you're writing.

If you're looking to have independent voices with proper part writing then you absolutely should try and avoid parallel 5ths and 8ves if at all possible. Observing the guidelines for counterpoint will make your melodies, bassline, inner voices and/or countermelodies richer and more elegant (and also great options for development!).

You CAN observe these guidelines with your voice leading while playing chords in a keyboard, comping a singer. Keyboard players naturally kind of do it. But (IMO) when you are comping someone playing the chords in the background the chord inversions you choose are much more relevant than the actual voice leading of the chords because in the end (if we are talking about block chords) I don't think people listening in would qualify the voices of the chords as really that "independent" from each other, particularly for things that run 1:1 in a homo-rhythmic way. There is a gain to be had by avoiding moving between triads or chords in a strict parallel motion like a complete beginner, of course. But checking each voice for hidden octaves and such is not really that impactful in those cases.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt

It depends on whether someone is stuck with being boring and classical or is more open...
nothing wrong or right per se, except in terms of how accurately you repeat stuff that has already been done. Exciting!

A good example is Thomas Bergersen, who is a hell of a part writer, but still uses sustain pads a ton. Whatever the track needs is the rule.

For me it's not uncommon to have 2-3 string sustain pads and about 10-15 individual lines at the same time, yea that's a 4rth or 5th violin section.

No idea if that's even on topic, the thread is to triggering to read properly and I don't need my creativity to be inhibited further than it naturally is already!


----------



## NuNativs

The tritone used to represent the "devil" so...


----------



## muk

Lionel Schmitt said:


> It depends on whether someone is stuck with being boring and classical or is more open...


No. It depends on how much somebody knows about what they are doing. Thinking that part-writing is only for classical music is a fundamental misunderstanding. Usually spread by amateurs who are too lazy to put in some work into something they pretend to care about.

We are not writing the same English that Samuel Pepys did. But we are still using grammar. And while a lot of the words changed - some going out of use, new ones being created, others changing their meaning and uses - the grammar is still similar. And as important as it has ever been. So no, you don't learn grammar just to read Shakespeare. You learn grammar to write and speak modern english as well. Similarly, you don't learn proper part-writing to write in the style of Mozart. You learn it because it is a fundamental part of the grammar of all tonal music.



Lionel Schmitt said:


> I don't need my creativity to be inhibited further than it naturally is already!


Don't look at it that way. Learning about grammar does not hinder anybodys ability to express themselves. Quite the opposite. It allows you to express yourself more freely, with more nuance. And most importantly, it allows the audience to actually understand what you are trying to say. That's what part-writing does too.

This is a bit like saying learning to cook will inhibit your natural creativity in preparing meals. If you do it right, it doesn't. It will save you from serving burnt forzen pizza to your guests.


----------



## NuNativs

Remember, monks weren't allowed to harmonize back in the day. Everything monophonic. Thank goddess we aren't constrained to that!

It's a musical style nothing more, nothing less. It's no more correct than any other. If that's the sound you're after knock yourself out. But to say it's the "correct" style is ludicrous.


----------



## NuNativs

Here's all the rules you need to know:

"ANY TONE can succeed any other tone, any tone can sound simultaneously with any other tone or tones, and any group of tones can be followed by any other group of tones, just as any degree of
tension or nuance can occur in any medium under any kind of mess or duration. Successful projection will depend upon the contextual and formal conditions that prevail, and upon the skill and the soul of the composer."
Vincent Persichetti


----------



## muk

NuNativs said:


> It's a musical style nothing more, nothing less.


No. Part-writing isn't a musical style. Nor does it apply to only one style of music. Part-writing explains what happens when one more voices move over time.

Picture a full score. If you read it vertically, top to bottom, that's harmony. Harmony explains how various pitches are perceived when sounding together. Now look at it horizontally, from left to right. Instead of multiple voices sounding together at one point in time, you now focus on one voice moving over time. That is part-writing.

Learning about voice-leading/part-writing tells you what happens if one or more voices move through time one way or another. And knowing that helps you to achieve the effect you are after with your music, and avoiding unintended effects.
Also, it's easy to understand and quick to get into. Then you will spend a lifetime refining it.

Or you can go on pretending that you care about music, but are too lazy to spend two days to educate yourself on a pretty fundamental, and easy to grasp topic. I'd just wish that people who do would have the curtesy to stop spreading nonsense about a topic they chose to be ignorant about.



NuNativs said:


> Here's all the rules you need to know:


Well, if you say so...


----------



## NuNativs

muk said:


> spend two days to educate yourself on a pretty fundamental, and easy to grasp topic. I'd just wish that people who do would have the curtesy to stop spreading nonsense about a topic they chose to be ignorant about.


I spent much much more than 2 days exploring said topic and I want my LIFE back.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt

muk said:


> No. It depends on how much somebody knows about what they are doing. Thinking that part-writing is only for classical music is a fundamental misunderstanding. Usually spread by amateurs who are too lazy to put in some work into something they pretend to care about.
> 
> We are not writing the same English that Samuel Pepys did. But we are still using grammar. And while a lot of the words changed - some going out of use, new ones being created, others changing their meaning and uses - the grammar is still similar. And as important as it has ever been. So no, you don't learn grammar just to read Shakespeare. You learn grammar to write and speak modern english as well. Similarly, you don't learn proper part-writing to write in the style of Mozart. You learn it because it is a fundamental part of the grammar of all tonal music.
> 
> 
> Don't look at it that way. Learning about grammar does not hinder anybodys ability to express themselves. Quite the opposite. It allows you to express yourself more freely, with more nuance. And most importantly, it allows the audience to actually understand what you are trying to say. That's what part-writing does too.
> 
> This is a bit like saying learning to cook will inhibit your natural creativity in preparing meals. If you do it right, it doesn't. It will save you from serving burnt forzen pizza to your guests.


well sounds reasonable. 
Whenever I seem to smell any mention of 'proper' writing etc the sky turns rather dark.
I think it's possible to write extremely interesting music without part writing but it's sure better to have the ability than not.


----------



## NuNativs

Edward Givens said:


> Write what makes you happy.


GOLD right there.


----------



## muk

Lionel Schmitt said:


> well sounds reasonable.
> Whenever I seem to smell any mention of 'proper' writing etc the sky turns rather dark.
> I think it's possible to write extremely interesting music without part writing but it's sure better to have the ability than not.


Totally understandable. Theory is often being present with that blasé attitude of 'do it this way, or else it's wrong'. In my opinion theory isn't there to tell you what's right or wrong, what you should or shouldn't do. Rather it should be a tool to help you understand what happens in certain situations, and why. And with that knowledge should help you being quicker ad more precise at what you want to express musically. If it feels like a hindrance, then something is wrong with the way it's being presented.


----------



## Rob

NuNativs said:


> GOLD right there.


if music is a profession, there are different considerations other than your personal happiness... main one being your compositions have to be really good, or you won't get the job


----------



## José Herring

All ways of organizing music can be good and every one of them can be bad as well. Let your ear be your guide, not the rules.


----------



## ed buller

Rob said:


> if music is a profession, there are different considerations other than your personal happiness... main one being your compositions have to be really good, or you won't get the job


to clarify...they have to please the client..............they may love crap !

best

e


----------



## Marsen

ed buller said:


> to clarify...they have to please the client..............they may love crap !
> 
> best
> 
> e


Should be the 1. rule, how to be sucessfull as a composer , well...


----------



## tmhuud

Daryl said:


> If it sounds good, it is good. The difficulty is getting to the stage where your tastes and experience are sufficient to know when it sounds good, and not winceable. Is that even a word?


Taking over for Jay?


----------



## KEM

José Herring said:


> All ways of organizing music can be good and every one of them can be bad as well. Let your ear be your guide, not the rules.



Perfectly said, more knowledge is always better, but knowledge is not law, at the end of the day the only thing that matters is if it sounds good, and there are many ways to end up at the same destination


----------



## liquidlino

José Herring said:


> All ways of organizing music can be good and every one of them can be bad as well. Let your ear be your guide, not the rules.


On this point, I've found that the part writing exercises I've been doing the last month have really improved my ear. I can now hear when there's a spacing error or consecutive or even hidden fifths error. This isn't anti-musical, this is fundamental sound engineering issues - if parts are masking each other through these errors, or not re-enforcing each other through correct spacing, then the music starts to sound thin and un-engaging. Sure, I make the conscious decision here and there to go, "I'm happy with that voice leading sounding a bit naff there, because it sets me up for the later transitions I want". But now... it's conscious! My mixes are so much easier/better, as well... the parts are effectively mixing themselves.


----------



## mikeh-375

NuNativs said:


> Here's all the rules you need to know:
> 
> "ANY TONE can succeed any other tone, any tone can sound simultaneously with any other tone or tones, and any group of tones can be followed by any other group of tones, just as any degree of
> tension or nuance can occur in any medium under any kind of mess or duration. Successful projection will depend upon the contextual and formal conditions that prevail, and upon the skill and the soul of the composer."
> Vincent Persichetti


That's all on the assumption that composers have mastered the basics enough to find their own way and create something coherent.


----------



## youngpokie

liquidlino said:


> I can now hear when there's a spacing error or consecutive or even hidden fifths error. This isn't anti-musical, this is fundamental sound engineering issues - if parts are masking each other through these errors, or not re-enforcing each other through correct spacing, then the music starts to sound thin


I do wonder sometimes if _sound quality_ is a good way to describe the effect of voice leading, (outside of the polyphonic and texture dimensions). The coloring of the chord from voice leading can be quite subtle and hard to recognize, but I think people who spend countless hours EQ'ing resonances and layering libraries to thicken the sound would hear it a lot more easily than the rest of us simply because they're more attuned to these kinds of nuances.

The trouble happens when we confuse the process of learning the tools with the creative process itself and with artistic merit and style, which is so pervasive including in responses in this thread. 

The fastest way to learn anything is to break it down into a set of "rules" or formulas and to show them in the simplest possible context. It must always be the most formulaic solution by definition - that's how all effective learning works. That's why all voice leading books always use the mind-numbing chorale style for teaching that's devoid of any texture and that nobody uses in real life - it makes the mechanics of the tools completely exposed and visible. That's what graded at exams - mastery of tools, not the artistic individuality of Orlando di Lasso. And that's why "best practice" regarding parallel 5s comes across as law - when it's really no different in intent than the formulaic "Look between 6 to 8 kHz to add presence to cello" that's littering the internets.


----------



## Emanuel Fróes

muk said:


> Bonus post for all who made it all the way through to here. Some simple guidelines that will help avoid the worst problems in part writing:
> 
> 
> Don’t write parallel fifths between individual voices.
> 
> Don’t write parallel octaves between individual voices.
> 
> There are three types of movement for an individual voice: moving down, moving up, staying on the same note. Always try to have at least two different types of movement present in your four voices (i.e. don’t lead all voices upwards or downwards at the same time).
> 
> When two chords share a common tone, try to connect them by having the common tone in one voice (this voice will stay on the same note for both chords).
> 
> Your voices always want to move by the smallest possible interval. If they can stay on the same note, they want to stay on the same note.


I would substitute this post by " 1. Hire a teacher 2. Read the classics "


----------



## Aldunate

Emanuel Fróes said:


> I would substitute this post by " 1. Hire a teacher 2. Read the classics "


wow. what teachers what classics.


----------



## b_elliott

Embarrassing to admit, but part writing is nothing I paid much attention to. So, to wisen up, I selected a sax riff repeated using the following part writing:

1. sax riff

2. sax riff + parallel octaves [Arturia strings]

3. sax riff + parallel 5ths

4. sax riff + an alternating 4ths then 5ths progression

5. sax riff + retrograde riff an octave higher

My 0.02 cents:
#2 reminds me of Sting's _Burn for You_ riff = I dig this sound;
#3 to me it sounds dated i.e., the Roman centurion days;
#s 4 and 5 sound like useable variations.
EDIT: Though not included in my mp3, parallel tritones (#4s) = 

Much more for me to explore; but, a start. Cheers, Bill


----------

