# I'm really struggling with voicing chords with strings to fit a melody



## Hoopyfrood (Apr 30, 2021)

I'm trying to get my head around the concept of voicing chords with the various parts of the string section etc. Call it a hangover from getting into making music from being a bass player initially, but I struggle to put chords to melodies in general, and having to also figure out what notes to give the various strings as well is doing my head in. I've written a simple violin melody to practice:




but I'm getting thrown by it staying on G for nearly two bars in the first and third part. I tried just using the strings to voice a Gmaj for the first chord, up to the Gmaj an octave above for the second (with the violas on root and third, violins on root and fifth, celli on roots an octave apart and basses on root) but it sounded pretty bad. I still wanted the chord progression to follow the flow of the violin, so after a lot of trial and error I found that I could get the effect by going from a first inversion of Gmaj to a regular Gmaj. And then the next bar the lead violin plays a D, but Dmaj didn't sound right either so I used the first inversion there too. 

But in that case are the celli and basses supposed to double the root or the first inversion of the root? It doesn't really sound right to my ears having them on the G in the first chord, but then it doesn't really sound right having them on the F# in the third. Or maybe I've just heard it so many times trying to work this out I've lost all sense of judgment, harmony and increasingly sanity. Would celli and basses ever double the inverted note of an inverted chord in one case and the root in a second? Also, is it weird that the very first note the celli and basses are playing is not the root note of the key it's in?

Here's an audio file with the violin riff and the chords in question, with the celli etc playing the F# on chord 1 and the D on chord 3. Does it work? Do the other chords sound OK against the melody? Like I say I've lost all judgment. I'm also iffy about the second last chord, but it may be a dynamics issue rather than an ill-fitting chord.


----------



## Rob (Apr 30, 2021)

if I was you I'd first think as a bass player , meaning: before thinking in terms of chords find a good bass line under the violin melody. If you can avoid going on the same notes where the violin goes, like in bar two, where both go from D to C. You can then fill the remaining notes, also using devices like appoggiaturas, suspensions etc.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Apr 30, 2021)

I think your main issue is using the melody note as the root of every chord - that's why the progression sounds 'blocky' and unmusical. There are lots of other ways you could harmonise this:

Once you find the best way of articulating your melody with the harmony, then you should find the string voicing much more straightforward.


----------



## thesteelydane (Apr 30, 2021)

You generally don't want to double the 3rd, especially of major chords, so in a 1st inversion chord you don't want to double the bass note. It's not just an archaic "rule" but rather has to do with the overtone series. The 3rd overtone is one octave + a fifth above the root. So let's take the 3rd of a C major chord as an example. That would be an E. One octave + a fifth above E is a B, and that's gonna clash with the root of our chord, the C. If you double the 3rd (the E) you will enhance this clash.

I would highly recommend you get some training in basic 4 part writing, it will help with EVERYTHING. I recommend the fundamentals course from Scoreclub.net for this, it's excellently laid out and starts from the very beginning.


----------



## mybadmemory (Apr 30, 2021)

As already stated. Start with either the melody and the chords (like a piano or guitar player) or the melody and the bass (as a bass player) before thinking about voicings.

Once you have the proper chords or proper bass notes, you can get on with the voicings or filling in the remaining parts of the harmony. But it’ll probably easier if you do the song writing before the arranging so to speak.


----------



## Living Fossil (Apr 30, 2021)

In the long term, the only method that _really_ works is to train your inner hearing to a point where you have a very clear inner imagination of what the arrangement is supposed to be.

Writing music is not about solving a sudoku, it's about creating an organism.
And this goes not only for melodies, it also goes for voicings, instrumentation, modulation etc.

When you look at the thousands and thousands of high quality compositions in the tradition of classical music, you will see that very similar ideas got executed in very different ways.

Once, the third is doubled in the accompaniment, once it's left out. Once there is no third at all.
And if you look closer, you will usually see that there is good reason why a specific solution works in a specific case.

So my advice would be to analyse music you like (there are thousands of scores at imspl) and to train your hearing.


----------



## Hoopyfrood (Apr 30, 2021)

Richard Wilkinson said:


> I think your main issue is using the melody note as the root of every chord - that's why the progression sounds 'blocky' and unmusical. There are lots of other ways you could harmonise this:
> 
> Once you find the best way of articulating your melody with the harmony, then you should find the string voicing much more straightforward.


All those sound awesome, thanks for that. And yes that probably is the issue.


----------



## Hoopyfrood (Apr 30, 2021)

thesteelydane said:


> You generally don't want to double the 3rd, especially of major chords, so in a 1st inversion chord you don't want to double the bass note. It's not just an archaic "rule" but rather has to do with the overtone series. The 3rd overtone is one octave + a fifth above the root. So let's take the 3rd of a C major chord as an example. That would be an E. One octave + a fifth above E is a B, and that's gonna clash with the root of our chord, the C. If you double the 3rd (the E) you will enhance this clash.
> 
> I would highly recommend you get some training in basic 4 part writing, it will help with EVERYTHING. I recommend the fundamentals course from Scoreclub.net for this, it's excellently laid out and starts from the very beginning.


I'm still working my way through Guy Michelmore's Learn Music Theory, maybe I'm just trying to run before I can walk here. That's really been my problem since I picked up making music again. But yes I see I have the wrong idea about what notes to double, great tip.

Thanks everyone else for the good advice too.


----------



## thesteelydane (Apr 30, 2021)

Hoopyfrood said:


> I'm still working my way through Guy Michelmore's Learn Music Theory, maybe I'm just trying to run before I can walk here. That's really been my problem since I picked up making music again. But yes I see I have the wrong idea about what notes to double, great tip.
> 
> Thanks everyone else for the good advice too.


Practicing 4 part writing is where it’s at, man! That, and above all what @Living Fossil said, which is spot on!


----------



## youngpokie (Apr 30, 2021)

In traditional education, there is a sequence of steps to harmonize the melody:

- first you determine the key and break the melody down into its component phrases (phrase 1, phrase 2, phrase 3, phrase 4). The reason for this is so that you can find the cadences (phrase endings) and harmonize them as the first step. These are basic IV, V and I chords in some sequence (for example IV-V-I; IV-V; IV-I-V-I; or something similar), at least to mark an initial possibility. You find and mark the cadence backwards, starting from the end.

- then you mark potential chords for phrase beginnings (for example, all the tonic chords)

- after that, you find potential chords for the rest of the melody. There are some "best practice" rules to either re-voice the previous chord or to find a new chord based on how the melody moves: stepwise or in leaps of 3rd, 4, 5 and 6.

- as you try out potential chords, you always check each chord candidate for the bass - you want to choose those chords that make sense harmonically but also allow your bass line to move in the opposite direction stepwise after each leap it makes, and also avoid copying the motion of the melody

- after you marked out the potential chords and have the bass line, the final step is to voice rest of chord tones. In practice, people frequently make changes as they go through this step, or they combine it with the previous step. They look for the stepwise motion of the inner voice(s) or for ways to keep them stationary while melody and bass move.


----------



## sinkd (Apr 30, 2021)

Great advice to think of all of the harmonies that could support the melody notes. Also analyze your melody to decide which notes are definitely passing tones (not in the triad or seventh chord). Your intuition to use first inversions for variety is good.

Think of a song like 'Over the Rainbow.' It starts out with an octave in the melody, but the second note is nicely harmonized by the chord on the sixth scale degree (E minor in the key of G). Strong harmonizations usually start by prolonging the key chord harmony (moving away and then back). This could be G-D-G or G-am-D-G. Falling fifth and falling third root motions are strong: Em-->am-->D7-->G; or G-em-C-am-(D-->G).

After key 'prolongation' think about moving to chords that come before D or D7, like Amin, A7, emin, or C/Cmin and build tension before the harmony closes back on G.

As you go, you can also try chords that are outside of the key like F (even F7) or Eb or Bb: do they fit in as a tasty "surprise" somewhere...


----------



## NoamL (Apr 30, 2021)

Richard Wilkinson said:


> I think your main issue is using the melody note as the root of every chord - that's why the progression sounds 'blocky' and unmusical. There are lots of other ways you could harmonise this:
> 
> Once you find the best way of articulating your melody with the harmony, then you should find the string voicing much more straightforward.


Nice stuff Richard!

Here's mine.


----------



## Dave Connor (Apr 30, 2021)

In traditional composition you quickly learn that voice movement below a melody (or in any context) is usually preferable to block chords. So you write melodically in all the parts as much as you can with notable exceptions based upon _function. _That is, the bass must ground the harmony (indeed - play the bass note) while certain voices above must also serve structural purposes, to clarify the harmony while other voices are moving more freely or melodically. This results in the persistent g you’re talking about. Often times a single note in the texture is what’s making the others work or sound well (based upon laws of _resonance._) Generally you simply try to give the g _some _movement so it doesn’t just sit there. Meaning that once you have created a working fluid texture in several voices, you can than address the more functional voices such as bass and other more static voices and _fix _them: move them more while hopefully not losing their structural integrity. It’s the age-old idea of vertical and horizontal considerations in part writing.


----------



## NoamL (Apr 30, 2021)

For @Hoopyfrood , really the #1 rule I followed here is to think about _when_ I wanted the harmony to change, and then I assumed the melody note at that point would be a member of the chord. So what chords have that note in them?

Starting with triads, you have six options to harmonize every note. So for G you have the options G maj, G min, Eb maj, E min, C maj, C min.

Study to be able to rattle these off quickly for every note (piano study helps a lot). And then whenever you're stuck just go through your options and see what sounds nice. Gradually you'll develop an instinct for what sounds "more familiar" versus "more adventurous" ways of harmonizing notes based on the key you already established. So for example once we harmonize the first G with G major and we have a second G note to harmonize, then G maj is the most "boring" option, E min and C maj are interesting, and the others are quite adventurous maybe too adventurous for the 2nd chord of a piece 

This is really the basis of all harmonization, the only tricks you add later in your music theory journey, will be adding different kinds of chords (such as the m7b5 chords in my harmonization), and having the melody note NOT be a member of the chord but instead a suspension or added color note (like I made the B at the end of the first phrase an unresolved suspension). These give you a lot more tools for color & nuance but it's the same basic idea.

In short

1. When does the harmony change?
2. What quality do I want the harmony to be there?
3. (_only now:_) and how do I lead the voices smoothly from harmony to harmony


----------



## muk (May 1, 2021)

This might give you some pointers, as well as hopefully being a kick off point for further study:






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


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.




vi-control.net


----------



## Gene Pool (May 1, 2021)

Hoopyfrood said:


> I'm trying to get my head around the concept of voicing chords with the various parts of the string section etc.


Hey there, all the comments above are great. Heed the advice.

If you're interested, tomorrow sometime I can take a phrase of your melody and show you one work method (among many) that simplifies the process of writing line by line. It's straightforward and quick. You'll do better when you think of writing line by line instead of voicing chords and then connecting them. Both are legit approaches, but line-by-line works better for a lot of people.

Anyway, let me know and I'll post audio and score of the step-by-step.


----------



## wsimpson (May 1, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> Hey there, all the comments above are great. Heed the advice.
> 
> If you're interested, tomorrow sometime I can take a phrase of your melody and show you one work method (among many) that simplifies the process of writing line by line. It's straightforward and quick. You'll do better when you think of writing line by line instead of voicing chords and then connecting them. Both are legit approaches, but line-by-line works better for a lot of people.
> 
> Anyway, let me know and I'll post audio and score of the step-by-step.


I am in the exact same situation as the original post so I would love this!


----------



## Hoopyfrood (May 2, 2021)

Thanks so much everyone for the valuable advice, a lot of it feels beyond my current understanding or will at least take me a while to digest, but you can bet I'll be referring back to this thread multiple times as I learn more. I've been watching some intro to four part harmony type videos as a start, and it's an intriguing subject but my first impression is it feels very restrictive as a writing style. I know I'm not writing a Bach Corale here and rules are made to be broken and all, but aren't I already committing a big no-no by having an octave jump?


Gene Pool said:


> Hey there, all the comments above are great. Heed the advice.
> 
> If you're interested, tomorrow sometime I can take a phrase of your melody and show you one work method (among many) that simplifies the process of writing line by line. It's straightforward and quick. You'll do better when you think of writing line by line instead of voicing chords and then connecting them. Both are legit approaches, but line-by-line works better for a lot of people.
> 
> Anyway, let me know and I'll post audio and score of the step-by-step.


That would be great if you have the time, thanks a lot.


----------



## Gene Pool (May 2, 2021)

Hoopyfrood said:


> That would be great if you have the time, thanks a lot.


Okay, I'll get on it. Gimme probably a few hours.


----------



## Gene Pool (May 2, 2021)

TL;DR = Like everyone, I find it helpful to develop a method to simplify and speed up the composing process depending on the target genre, style, texture, orchestration, texture, and specific type of composing. This is one I use for polyphonic textures, and it may or may not be helpful, but thought I’d at least explain a basic process that I’ve found more efficient than how I used to go about it.
____________________

–Ordinarily for this melody, I’d do this with the whole 8 bars, but I chose just the first 4 since this is just an example. (By the way, I lengthened the last note of each phrase to give me room for more movement; not trying to change your melody. Also, I gave it a quick little ending so it wouldn’t sound like it jumped off a cliff when you play it back, but I would typically not do that unless it was going to _be_ the actual ending.)

–I take the melody / main line and format my page to accommodate the whole line without a system break.

–I copy the line consecutively about five or six times in a series. If the last bar does not tie in well with the first bar of the next repetition, I leave a blank bar for a mental reset. Didn’t have to do that here.

–First time through I put the melody in the top line by itself. Every new repetition of the melody thereafter I add another voice. First voice I add is of course the bass. After that then either the inner voices enter separately at each repetition in Tenor—Alto order or Alto-Tenor order.

–I’m not thinking much about harmony except as a background influence, and mainly I want to write another line against the melody. I’m looking for direction in each line, and something that musicians can phrase.

–The first entries for repetitions I try to keep very straightforward and simple, to get a good grounding. After that I get more or less into more extended* types of counterpoint.

–I move horizontally in the process as much as possible so as not to get bogged down. Too much second guessing, obsessing too early, makes me lose perspective and focus.

–I don’t add dynamics, articulation, bowing, or basically orchestrate the thing, because all I want to focus on is the notes.

–I don’t do any major reharmonization of the melody at this point, because I want to keep my mindset in the right “cast” at that point. Major reharmonization or other types of treatment are saved for a separate process.

–The overall intent is to avoid something I used to do, which is to sit there working on one version till I get it like I want. Then suddenly I’d realize that something I’d done in bar 3 two hours ago is now gone.

–I started doing it this way after reading about Ravel’s comments composing _Bolero_—writing a melody back-to-back with multiple repetitions and altering its treatment each time.

–Each new treatment of each repetition usually has some in common with the prior repetition or with something you did several repetitions ago, but about half is unique for that repetition.You're not trying to come up with any single repetition that you like perfectly yet; you’re mainly editing what you’ve done and building on what came prior.

–When I’ve done this to a melody about 5 – 7 times, I put that set aside and work on something else. When I’m ready to use the melody, now I’ve got everything from very simply to more complex to choose from, depending on where I’m at in the composition. At that point I go over the setting with a fine-tooth comb and do any necessary cleanup.
____________________

*Extended Types of Counterpoint:

I mentioned this above, which is just my term for counterpoint that kinda has one foot in Baroque / Classical period practice and another foot in, say, Vaughn-Williams neighborhood (Tallis fantasia, Two Hymn Preludes, etc.). A really brief summary:

–From Baroque / Classical:

1) writing line against line using “Harmonic, Instrumental Counterpoint" (not late Renaissance vocal polyphony).
2) using suspensions, appoggiaturas, plenty of “active” tones, etc.
3) keeping the principles of polyphony from those periods as an overall lose guide as an overall point of departure, but not being over-constrained by them.

–From Vaughn-Willams et al:

1) Treating all inversions of constant triads as consonant (2nd inversions treated as consonant and independent).
2) Relaxing the treatment of 5ths (parallel, consecutive, direct, hidden), but the objectionable type of octaves are still avoided when you don’t want to lose a voice and unduly strengthen another.
3) Using pandiatonicism, "added note” harmony, planing, the occasional parallel soft dissonance when it fits the context.
____________________

There’s a good chance I’m probably forgetting to clarify something, since I always do. And if you or anyone wants me to clarify something about my approach that’s fine, though I won’t be able to answer for a couple days. I might add what I forgot then too.

If anyone here thinks of something to add, please do. I’d be interested to hear how other people go about writing modern polyphony with respect to method and approach.

(Audio and Score in the next post.)


----------



## Gene Pool (May 2, 2021)

Here's the score formatted according to Hoppyfrood's first four-bar phrase. The melody is played nine regular times, and two descant times near the end. I put all instances of the melody in alternating colors for easy visual separation.

Having trouble loading up the mp3. Stops playing before the end. I even abridged it and chose a smaller bit rate and no dice. I'll try one last time in a separate thread, but it's not so relevant to the point of the method anyway.


----------



## Gene Pool (May 2, 2021)

Anyway, all I had time for was the raw output from NotePerformer, which is about as _raw and rough_ as it gets. I have to put on the headphones to make it tolerable. You've been warned.

View attachment String Thing.mp3


----------



## Hoopyfrood (May 2, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> Maybe it's just cutting out on me. Don't know if it's universal. Doubt it. I'll post it anyway and if it abruptly stops playing, sorry about that. At least it helps the original point, I hope:
> 
> View attachment 49224


Played fine all the way through to me. And wow, that's beautiful, can't believe you got that from my tiny little phrase. And thanks so much for the amazing tips, I'm definitely going to have to try that out, at least once I understand it properly (there are some terms in there I haven't even encountered yet). You read my mind too, I was going to ask you how closely you followed the "rules" of classic four part harmony as there seem to be rather a lot of them judging from the intro videos I've been watching. So you relax the rules on consecutive fifths, what about the ones on not criss-crossing lines or always going from V-I in the final two chords? Those are some of the ones I felt sound the most restrictive.


----------



## Gingerbread (May 2, 2021)

Played all the way through on my browser. Excellent method and lesson!


----------



## Gene Pool (May 2, 2021)

Hoopyfrood said:


> You read my mind too, I was going to ask you how closely you followed the "rules" of classic four part harmony as there seem to be rather a lot of them judging from the intro videos I've been watching. So you relax the rules on consecutive fifths, what about the ones on not criss-crossing lines or always going from V-I in the final two chords? Those are some of the ones I felt sound the most restrictive.


It just depends on what affect I'm going after. There are many legitimate approaches. Some people don't like going much beyond the traditional bounds while some never want to go inside them. Just personal preference. I just look at it pragmatically and do whatever will get me the effect I'm going after.

Depending on your source, the post-Fux Common Practice voice-leading principles are essentially a survey of the commonalities between how Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert handled intervals, melodically, harmonically, and contrapuntally. Their goal then was the utmost pristine independence of each part. No fusion of the parts or loss of independence. But if you go through their scores you can find many deviations as well.

Learning all that is definitely the basis for however you want to expand upon that later.

You can write with those principles firmly in place and have it not sound "Classical," but the nature of your phrase suggested a more modern approach, for lack of a better word.

Hopefully someone will come along and add more clarity since it's a huge and important topic. I'll be incommunicado for a couple of days. Glad this helped a bit.


----------



## fantasy sound (May 3, 2021)

wow interesting thread!
I personally like the style of Romantic music 
View attachment harmony strings3.mp3

My golden rules of harmonization for this type of music are:

1) avoid parallel 5th and 8th as far as possible.
2) analyze melody and find some typical patterns, sequences or cadences etc (in this case, I found an ascending major 2nd pattern in your phrase that I think is best suited for Phrygian cadence).
3) move inner voices and use appoggiatura.





Hope it helps in some way.


----------



## youngpokie (May 3, 2021)

fantasy sound said:


> 2) analyze melody and find some typical patterns, sequences or cadences etc (in this case, I found an ascending major 2nd pattern in your phrase that I think is best suited for Phrygian cadence).


Cadences, I think, are the secret sauce of creating a style and so many are missing out by ignoring them. 

Your harmonization sounds, indeed, very Romantic. The non-cadential harmony could benefit from a few chromatic alterations to make it gel even more with the cadence, but even without it's quite expressive! Love it.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 3, 2021)

Users fight/ignore Gene Pool at their own educational peril. 🤙🏻


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 3, 2021)

fantasy sound said:


> I found an ascending major 2nd pattern in your phrase that I think is best suited for Phrygian cadence


It makes the piece! 🤙🏻


----------



## fantasy sound (May 4, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> Cadences, I think, are the secret sauce of creating a style and so many are missing out by ignoring them.
> 
> Your harmonization sounds, indeed, very Romantic. The non-cadential harmony could benefit from a few chromatic alterations to make it gel even more with the cadence, but even without it's quite expressive! Love it.



Thank you for your kind words! Indeed, it’s true that the Romantic composers occasionally utilized non-functional harmony or so-called Neo-Riemannian harmony to achieve otherworldly mysterious results, but most of the time good-old functional harmony and cadential progressions still did the trick for their “romantic” pieces.  



Stephen Limbaugh said:


> It makes the piece! 🤙🏻


----------



## I like music (May 4, 2021)

What a thread! 

So it would be a fairly good use of my time to at least get some lessons in traditional four-part writing to start with, right? 

BTW @Gene Pool I struggle so much to write music that since I "got into it" 5/6 years ago, I've written about of minute's worth of music that ever went anywhere.

After I saw your method, I took the melody, and simply added a second line. BOOM. I heard it completely differently. Tons more work and learning for me to do, but the method has helped tremendously, but for now I'm just focussing on adding one line at a time. I'm not sure if that's an advisable thing to do, but what it has done is that it has got me "hearing" the line rather than just plonking down chords, and being guided by them. 

It was interesting to hear the 2nd and 3rd iterations (or "builds") of what you did, because even though there were a small number of voices, they actually implied a clear enough harmony for me, to the point that I though "I could listen to minutes and minutes of this"

That is until I heard the very final couple of versions and that blew my mind.

Also @fantasy sound this was awesome!


----------



## wsimpson (May 4, 2021)

Just amazing. Thank you!!!


----------



## gyprock (May 4, 2021)

In addition to the excellent recommendations thus far, go to Google Play Books and download the free sample of Analysing Classical Form by William Caplin. The first chapter has one of the best summaries of functional harmony. There are many examples of how functional harmony is used for themes and form if you decide to buy the book.


----------



## SlHarder (May 5, 2021)

gyprock said:


> go to Google Play Books and download the free sample of Analysing Classical Form by William Caplin.


Excellent advice, you get 50 pages of very detailed material with score examples. Read about "the myth of the plagal cadence".


----------



## marclawsonmusic (May 5, 2021)

This is a fantastic thread. Thanks, @Gene Pool for such a great write-up and example. After reading this, I realize I really need to up my counterpoint.


----------



## Gene Pool (May 5, 2021)

I like music said:


> So it would be a fairly good use of my time to at least get some lessons in traditional four-part writing to start with, right?


I think learning and practicing the first level of Common Practice voice-leading principles *(don't think of them as "rules")* is essential for the vast majority of composers. It pertains mostly to homophonic textures, but some systems go far enough to cover conservative polyphony, such as chorale texture, which bridges the gap between this level and the next.

The next level, which is an expansion of the first, is for polyphonic textures. If a composer's preferred style(s) leans mostly on homophonic texture, this level may not be necessary, but at least some light grounding in this aspect of texture may help a composer determine his or her musical goals, and help at times when venturing beyond his or her comfort zone.

There are different pedagogies for teaching both; some good, and some less than optimum. But one of the more important things to learn is to look at _apparent_ "exceptions" in the repertoire and understanding their basis, since composing music using these Independent Voice techniques is hardly a checklist of do's and don'ts, but principles.

And to clear up some misperceptions you may come across, the first level has nothing to do with "sounding Classical" nor the second level with "sounding like Bach." All of these principles transcend style, and some—such as harmonic octaves (non-doubling), fifths and fourths—are eternal, not arbitrarily stylistic, since they are *physiological*. What you do with this "physiological response" at any given point in a piece of music should be conscious and serve your musical goal at that point, whatever it is. The best way to learn your options here is to look at the various pre-Common Practice treatments of octaves (non-doubling), fifths and fourths, and the ones that came after.

Learning Independent Voice movement, which was perfected over centuries by lots of the most talented composers in history, is a great sort of "home base." It makes all of the approaches that are not 100% inside it, or even almost totally outside it, a lot easier as you absorb more and more down the line.



I like music said:


> After I saw your method...


I want to make sure that I didn't miscommunicate. Writing line by line goes back many centuries. In that regard I'm just carrying out a very old approach, and in this case simply using a modified set of parameters that would get some red marks in a modal or tonal counterpoint class.

The small part of this that is "my" method (which probably many other composers use similarly) is just the way I go about writing line by line. Going through each version left-to-right one voice at a time pretty quickly; not getting bogged down; not over-analyzing or judging too closely during this initial phase; and intensifying each setting for the last few passes. It's also why the entire thing doesn't have any non-diatonic notes, because limitations train your focus, in this case on just the lines and the harmonic intervals they make against the other voices. In a four-part texture there are 6 duets, so if you over-scrutinize early on you might be predominantly using the rational part of your brain and losing your creative focus. Editing and detailing comes later.



I like music said:


> After I saw your method, I took the melody, and simply added a second line. BOOM. I heard it completely differently. Tons more work and learning for me to do, but the method has helped tremendously, but for now I'm just focussing on adding one line at a time. I'm not sure if that's an advisable thing to do, but what it has done is that it has got me "hearing" the line rather than just plonking down chords, and being guided by them.


That's terrific.


----------



## I like music (May 5, 2021)

T


Gene Pool said:


> I think learning and practicing the first level of Common Practice voice-leading principles *(don't think of them as "rules")* is essential for the vast majority of composers. It pertains mostly to homophonic textures, but some systems go far enough to cover conservative polyphony, such as chorale texture, which bridges the gap between this level and the next.
> 
> The next level, which is an expansion of the first, is for polyphonic textures. If a composer's preferred style(s) leans mostly on homophonic texture, this level may not be necessary, but at least some light grounding in this aspect of texture may help a composer determine his or her musical goals, and help at times when venturing beyond his or her comfort zone.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the detailed response, and once again, thanks for elaborating on some of the parts you talked about before. Importantly, this gives me a thread to follow on where to 'begin' with some important education. Can't thank you enough. Glad I checked out the thread.

All that said, enough of the real stuff. Now I must go check out some drama zone threads to counterbalance this useful foray!


----------



## ThomasS (May 5, 2021)

Here's another possibility...


----------

