I just want to insert this for those who feel that this may seem too oppressive. This is music theory specifically designed for polyphonic part writing. It may or may not be useful for your genre such as jazz. However, it's necessary if you want to generate rich overtones and write distinct voices that has its own melodic line without clashing or dissolving into one another. If your aim is more prolific or classical then this knowledge will very much help you.
Yes, Manas. My coursework is geared toward common-practice tonality in the beginning music theory sequence. The part-writing in jazz/pop/other genres may differ slightly, but this is the foundation for most musical styles following the 18th century.
Even then, it's good to not always follow the rules. However in order to do that you must know the rules first. I feel like experimenting with breaking the rules is generally how the most unique and beautiful music is written.
I just found your channel when I saw your first species counterpoint. I subbed immediately. Your lessons are absolutely basic and simply clear. That is hard to do. I'm trying to learn the piano at 65 yoa (like my Mom), but have suspected that I have Aural Aphantasia. I don't have a melody in my head even after over a year of pounding the 88 keys. But I just learned the Rule of the Octave and am working on the cadence exercises of CPE Bach. I've been singing (badly) the changes on the root, third and fifth, and at least have a better understanding of how the music should move. I'm hoping that by practicing first species counterpoint, I can make progress. Who cares how long it takes. Merci beaucoup from Switzerland.
Thanks so much for your kind words. Pedagogy is important to me, and I’m glad you find the videos useful. If there’s a topic you’d like to see, just let me know! Good luck with the piano playing - it will be worth the effort! 💜
I think that Dr. Meyer's content is great. I've learned a lot from it, for which I'm grateful. I'll add some thoughts here about this particular video for Dr. Meyer's consideration. These thoughts are based on some ideas/principles the following of which I believe make written/spoken content easier to consume. This video doesn't link to other videos as prereqs; so I'll take this to be a standalone, self-contained bit of education. Many of my objections here wouldn't apply were this an in-person lesson. In that case the student can ask questions, and seek clarification. But in a video, you have one chance, and once chance only, to get the info across perfectly. And folks who watch vidoes are usually short on patience. "[...] a model of harmony and voice-leading in more elaborate music." I think I know what you mean; but anyone who didn't already know what that sentence means, and were trying to parse it on face value, likely wouldn't know what it meant. So how about, "[...] a model of harmony and voice-leading as preparation for writing more elaborate music." I think that's more what you meant. "[...] is a matter of voicing". I would add "(in the pop/jazz sense)" or something at the end there. The problem is that classical pianists use the term "voicing" to mean making some notes of a chord sound more prominently than others. While pop/jazz players use it in the sense you mean here. So I think that that overloading of terms needs some navigating for the comfort of the audience. "[...] the qualities of balance and clarity." And then you imply that the audience should strive for those qualities in our own writing. But you don't explain what balance and clarity are. So a) how can we know whether or not we're achieving those things, and b) why should we feel motivated to strive for qualities that we don't understand? These things need to be defined and explained. Anyone watching this video who already knows what those terms mean very likely doesn't need to be watching the video. Remember to end a sentence with a period. "[...] use the middle of each voice's range." But you don't say, and the diagram doesn't show, where the middle is. Some people might think that by "middle" you mean the single note that sits right in the middle of the range. But you mean a smaller range that sits in the middle. Folks need that explained. At this point it'd be interesting to tell the audience that by "the middle", you mean the notes that can be sung comfortably. Such notes are easier to sing, but sound less interesting, than notes at the extremes of the range (which will tend to stand out from the choir). So those extreme notes can use used for emphasis or increased emotion. "Double the root in root position for better clarity". Ok, a couple of interesting principles here. First, write in such a way that as the reader parses the sentence, they build up an always-true, but increasingly precise, mental model. Here, after "double the root", the mental model that I've formed is that I should double the root. But that's not true; that's misleading. I should double the root only under certain conditions. So, before saying "double the root", you should state those conditions (or at least some of them). If we were to write "In root position, double the root", then that's immediately an improvement. Now, after "in root position", I haven't been misled. I'm simply waiting to be told something related to, and significant about, that scenario. And I get it with the three words that follow. The second principle is to tell people why we're asking them to do something before (not after) we ask them to do it. For example, "For more info, see MyAwesomeWebPage" is slightly better than "See MyAwesomeWebPage for more info". In the former, which sounds like a gentle invitation, anyone can stop reading if they judge that they don't want "more info". In the latter, we're issuing an order right out of the gate; and that sounds slightly impolite. And then as an afterthought we add the reason why folks might want to obey our order. So here we should open with "for better clarity". So I would rewrite that sentence as "It gives better clarity, in root position, to double the root". So now I'm told the reason why I might care, up front; then the conditions to which the advice applies; and finally the advice itself. Your sentence has them in completely the wrong order. And I know why: it's because it's easier and quicker to write without thinking about these things. But it's a little more comfortable for your readers if you put this kind of care into your writing. And that's why it's polite and considerate to do so. "Do not double any tendency tone for improved balance." This one is even worse, because it's also ambiguous. Some people will read that and think: Oh, so doubling any tendency tone gives improved balance, does it? And I shouldn't do that." It should say, "For improved balance, don't double a tendency tone." But again it doesn't define what a tendency tone is. "The diminished chord on scale degree seven in first inversion contains the leading-tone, and should not be doubled." First, that chord contains the leading-tone no matter what inversion it's in. And second, the way you've worded it, you're saying that the chord shouldn't be doubled". That should say, "The diminished chord on scale degree seven (here it's in first inversion) contains the leading-tone, which should not be doubled." Later you say something very similar, but you correctly use the word "which" instead of "and", so it's clear you're talking about the tone and not the chord. "The V7 has both the leading-tone and the seventh of the chord, both of which [...] should not be doubled." A lot of folks will think: but how can they be doubled; you have only four voices? So a *preqrequisite* for understanding this slide is the fact that you can omit certain chord factors. You'd have to omit something (say, the fifth) before you even have the option of making the mistake (doubling a tendency tone) that you're talking about. But we don't learn that until the following slide. So, another really vital principle in education is to teach ideas in the right order. You can learn something only if you already know it. Thatt's a strange thing to say; but it rewards thinking about it, and understanding it. Ok, I've gotten only 3:19 into the video so far, so I'll stop here. But it should be easy to apply the principles I've mentioned everywhere else.
These videos are part a series intended for my in-class use as a university professor. They are supplemental and not meant to be standalone material. Thanks for your comments.
Oh my is this useful. Im trying to wrap up a guitar course, but for the final assignment I got a bit ambitious and well... Need to research how to properly arrange for a small ensemble (the muse is quite unforgiving :P) Seriously, very helpful. I wonder though when part writing for instruments how much would the crossings themselves affect clarity? I suppose its very dependent on the instrumentation (if the tone is pleasant across the range, capable of taking over while not being in any way confused then your more likely to get away with it)... Guess you keep things like this in mind and experiment for effect but always with the understanding that there should be a musical purpose because theres a good chance this will cause issues with and need reworking. Still I always think of the Great Fugue and how delightful those crossings are, but then again Beethoven spent a lifetime rewriting the rule book, and could get away with making just about anything sound wonderful through his unwavering diligence and prodigious talent. Anyway wonderful stuff
''Do not double leading tones and 7ths'' I did not know that. Explanation was very simple to understand. Thank you for sharing. I have a question. If i don't have the root note of the chord on the bass, do i still have to double the root of the chord? Like the last example? Dm/F
I have a question. At the practice example. The 2nd chord. Why does it not have the root in the bass but in the other 2 voices? Thanks for the great video
That's a good observation, Hugo. The doubling of this chord would be better if it were the 3rd of the chord which is doubled instead of the root, but the doubling here does not create any parallels, so it is an acceptable doubling. First inversion chords generally sound "more inverted" when the root is not doubled.
Neil, You’re right in that composers go outside of the norms of composition, but know that they extensively studied these before they wrote music which violates them. It is important to note that the syntax of musical composition is deeply entrenched in tradition and these rules are mostly a representation of that tradition. If you want your music to sound logical and flowing, you should abide mostly by the rules and only rarely bend a few for added emphasis.
The spacing part is least clear for me. In the close position example, couldn't an E or G fit on the treble staff, fitting it between the tenor and alto? Thank you for the excellent video.
Not in this example. The tenor is a G4 with all those ledger lines, it makes it a major third below the B in the alto. It might help to write the tenor note in treble clef to see they are, in fact, quite close and no other chord tone can fit between.
Hi guys just a brief question if anyone can answer. I've been studying classical form like the sonata, rondo, theme and variations and scherzo but sometimes I come across a slower movement which doesn't seem to follow any set form. This is often the second movement of a bigger work such as the second movement to Beethoven's fifth symphony. My question is how are works like these conceptualised and built? I understand themes and development of themes and motifs and ideas - I'm currently studying Brahms' second symphony. Any advice towards this would be great.
The forms of slow movements are not as strict as other movements during the classical era (unlike the 1st movement, which most often is in sonata form). There are however a few common ones (in no particular order): 1. The standard ABA or ABABA form. This is the most used form in slow movements. Often, when the A and B sections return, they have more ornamentation or other embellishments than before. A coda is common too. Examples: Beethoven, Sonata No. 15, 2nd movement. Beethoven, Sonata No. 5, 2nd movement. 2. The rondo form. Even though it might seem strange, it is surprisingly common. Examples: Beethoven, Symphony No. 3, 2nd movement. Beethoven, Sonata No. 8, 2nd movement. 3. The sonata form. This too might seem strange but is often featured, especially by later composers. Often, the sonata form is varied from the standard. Sometimes, the composers don't have a development section at all, such as in the second example. Examples: Beethoven, Sonata No. 14, 1st movement. Beethoven, Sonata No. 17, 2nd movement. 4. Theme and variations. Examples: Beethoven, Sonata No. 23, 2nd movement. Often, double variation forms also occur where 2 themes are varied. In this category, your aforementioned movement in Beethoven's 5th falls. Haydn and Beethoven were especially fond of this. Examples: Beethoven, Symphony No. 7, 2nd movement. Beethoven, Symphony No. 5, 2nd movement. 5. The slow movements can also be even more free in their form, almost improvisatory in character. But this is uncommon. There are no good examples of this, but Beethoven, Sonata No. 21, 2nd movement is the best I can think of. It is rather free, but still follows a kind of ABA form. Check out Beethoven, Sonata No. 26, 2nd movement too! Good luck with future endeavours!
what about in atonal, or moreover 1920s style music? I'm one who shuns rules in music, for the composer should create music with all freedom of choice. But then again, I'm more like that of Messiaen, or Eric Whitacre when it comes to voice writing.
These “rules” pertain to common-practice music and its voice leading. Most of the other tonal practices grow/grew out of this tradition, so it’s important to study the foundation of the craft and deviate from there at your will.
@pianxtremeyt I can guarantee you Messiaen and Eric Whitacre know this tradition of “rules”, and choose to adhere to or deviate from them at their discretion. Please stop mistaking willful ignorance for freedom of choice.
are these rules applicable only to part writing? I play the guitar and almost all the voicings of chords have some problems with doubling the wrong notes
Part writing generally has to do with 4 independent voice parts, like SATB, and how those voices interact with one another. When you are playing chords on a guitar, the doubling does not behave in the same way because the voices are not independent but adding to the sonic potency of the harmony. Homophony versus polyphony, make sense?
@@DrKatiMeyerMusicTheory Ok I understand so can part writing or counterpoint help at all in homophonic music or is it specifically for polyphonic music?
@@armansrsa It has benefits for homophonic music, like resolutions of chordal sevenths, and voice-leading of tendency tones, like the leading-tone or chromatic pitches. Most of the rules of part-writing apply widely to both homophonic and polyphonic music, but the doubling "voicing" on your guitar is just that, voicing - not necessarily chord spelling or voice-leading. You're still using the same pitches, you're just doubling them with the use of 6 strings for a "bigger" "fuller" sound.
I don’t dispute the basic premise but as a composer, as Alan Belkin says, the wider question, rarely is “what is effective composition?” Bach or Beethoven occasionally use doubled leading tones, Debussy loves parallel fifths. For me, the Soul comes before rules
Open position is when you could fit a chord tone in between adjacent voices. So a chord tone F could fit between the D and the A of the tenor and alto voices. Thus open. If closed, no chord tones could fit.
@@DrKatiMeyerMusicTheory Thank you and now I understood where I am confused. Because I was considering the rule was just valid between alto and soprano. Ok it's also between Tenor and Alto. Is it also valid between Bas and Tenor? Thanks for your patience and kindness as well:)
Ma'am can you do a more simple tutorial with easy english words? These lessons are more valuable for my compositions but there are lot of understanding matters...
You say that 7ths are tendency tones. If I have a ii7 chord, the 7th of that chord is the 1st scale degree. In Dm7 the 7th is the note C which is scale degree 1. Is this C now a tendency tone because it sits above a Dm chord?
Jeremy, the upper voices cannot be farther than one octave away from each other, so if the soprano is on C5, the alto cannot be lower than C4. If the alto is on C4, the tenor cannot be lower than C3.
Here's an example, for better illustrating my question... in his famous chorale "Jesus bleibet meine Freude" (BWV 147), there is this verse "darum laß ich Jesum nicht". The tenor sings it like this: D4-E4-D4-B3-B3-C4-D4-E4-D4 But the bass sings it like this G3-E3-B3-E4-E3-A2-B2-C3-D3. In other words, the bass goes above the tenor in the 4th note. This seems quite deliberate by Bach. But why??? What was he trying to achieve???
I just looked at that particular example and the bass voice is leaping around a great deal. This is very strange, even for Bach. I wonder if it’s not a manuscript typo. In the case of other voice overlapping- especially with Bach- polyphony is very different from the homophonic texture of four-part writing, and while the voices generally stay independent of one another, polyphonic voices can sometimes overlap due simply to their independence and disregard for the other voices resulting in an overlap.
@@DrKatiMeyerMusicTheory Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question, Dr. Meyer! Much appreciated! I was using the Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe version of the score, which is available at the IMSLP. So I checked the original manuscript from Bach (also available at the IMSLP)... the version I was using does contain a few errors, but not in the case of the overlapping in question (bass sings E4 while tenor sings B3). I also noticed that, in other versions of the chorale (e.g. Anne DeBlois), the notes were swapped, i.e. the E2 was given to the tenor part, while the B3 was given to the bass part. I'm not sure this is a good idea, as I suspect Bach must have had some kind of purpose/effect in mind... Anyway, your explanation (homophony vs. polyphony) makes a lot of sense. Again, thank you for your time and for all the wonderful videos you have shared with us!
Melody writing is usually for one voice( according to my syllabus) hence when writing a melody for many voices, we call them Harmonies so I guess it depends on which syllabus you're using
05:00 If you would look at Old Hymnals from the last 100 years, you'll find voice crossing in each and every hymn. Even by composers and editors like Ralph Vaughan Williams.
Thanks for your comment. We are studying music in the Western Art Music tradition, so it’s not unlikely that the style would have evolved within the last 300 years. So you’re absolutely correct that some voice-leading practices have changed during the codification of the rules and practices.
![How To Arrange Chords into BEAUTIFUL 4-PART HARMONIES [Music Theory - Voice Leading]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UkatcvIuF4U/mqdefault.jpg)
This lady wrote a lesson for her students, and ended up making a very nice resource for the whole internet.
Thanks Kati!
What a kind post! Thank you!!
This was posted years ago, but I still reference this video when arranging.Easily the best video on part-writing I've ever watched.
Wow! Thanks so much for the compliment - happy to be of service :)
I'm very impressed with your teaching style, please I need you to continue teaching me.
I am glad you are enjoying the lessons! I will definitely continue to make videos for you all! 😊
I just want to insert this for those who feel that this may seem too oppressive. This is music theory specifically designed for polyphonic part writing. It may or may not be useful for your genre such as jazz.
However, it's necessary if you want to generate rich overtones and write distinct voices that has its own melodic line without clashing or dissolving into one another. If your aim is more prolific or classical then this knowledge will very much help you.
Yes, Manas. My coursework is geared toward common-practice tonality in the beginning music theory sequence. The part-writing in jazz/pop/other genres may differ slightly, but this is the foundation for most musical styles following the 18th century.
Even then, it's good to not always follow the rules. However in order to do that you must know the rules first. I feel like experimenting with breaking the rules is generally how the most unique and beautiful music is written.
I'm only a teenager but I really want to learn how to write music... I know I'm very late, but thank you so much for this!
You can do it!
I took music theory last year. I’m a composer trying to improve my part writing skills. This is the review refresher I needed. Thanks!
In this video, I liked that it gave me a better understanding of the balance between voices versus randomly writing notes for each voice.
Thank you for a great refresher on part writing
You are awesome. Dr. Meyer. Thank you. You've explained some solid guidelines for sonic clarity.... nicely.
I just found your channel when I saw your first species counterpoint. I subbed immediately. Your lessons are absolutely basic and simply clear. That is hard to do.
I'm trying to learn the piano at 65 yoa (like my Mom), but have suspected that I have Aural Aphantasia. I don't have a melody in my head even after over a year of pounding the 88 keys. But I just learned the Rule of the Octave and am working on the cadence exercises of CPE Bach. I've been singing (badly) the changes on the root, third and fifth, and at least have a better understanding of how the music should move. I'm hoping that by practicing first species counterpoint, I can make progress. Who cares how long it takes.
Merci beaucoup from Switzerland.
Thanks so much for your kind words. Pedagogy is important to me, and I’m glad you find the videos useful. If there’s a topic you’d like to see, just let me know! Good luck with the piano playing - it will be worth the effort! 💜
I think that Dr. Meyer's content is great. I've learned a lot from it, for which I'm grateful. I'll add some thoughts here about this particular video for Dr. Meyer's consideration. These thoughts are based on some ideas/principles the following of which I believe make written/spoken content easier to consume.
This video doesn't link to other videos as prereqs; so I'll take this to be a standalone, self-contained bit of education. Many of my objections here wouldn't apply were this an in-person lesson. In that case the student can ask questions, and seek clarification. But in a video, you have one chance, and once chance only, to get the info across perfectly. And folks who watch vidoes are usually short on patience.
"[...] a model of harmony and voice-leading in more elaborate music." I think I know what you mean; but anyone who didn't already know what that sentence means, and were trying to parse it on face value, likely wouldn't know what it meant. So how about, "[...] a model of harmony and voice-leading as preparation for writing more elaborate music." I think that's more what you meant.
"[...] is a matter of voicing". I would add "(in the pop/jazz sense)" or something at the end there. The problem is that classical pianists use the term "voicing" to mean making some notes of a chord sound more prominently than others. While pop/jazz players use it in the sense you mean here. So I think that that overloading of terms needs some navigating for the comfort of the audience.
"[...] the qualities of balance and clarity." And then you imply that the audience should strive for those qualities in our own writing. But you don't explain what balance and clarity are. So a) how can we know whether or not we're achieving those things, and b) why should we feel motivated to strive for qualities that we don't understand? These things need to be defined and explained. Anyone watching this video who already knows what those terms mean very likely doesn't need to be watching the video.
Remember to end a sentence with a period.
"[...] use the middle of each voice's range." But you don't say, and the diagram doesn't show, where the middle is. Some people might think that by "middle" you mean the single note that sits right in the middle of the range. But you mean a smaller range that sits in the middle. Folks need that explained. At this point it'd be interesting to tell the audience that by "the middle", you mean the notes that can be sung comfortably. Such notes are easier to sing, but sound less interesting, than notes at the extremes of the range (which will tend to stand out from the choir). So those extreme notes can use used for emphasis or increased emotion.
"Double the root in root position for better clarity". Ok, a couple of interesting principles here. First, write in such a way that as the reader parses the sentence, they build up an always-true, but increasingly precise, mental model. Here, after "double the root", the mental model that I've formed is that I should double the root. But that's not true; that's misleading. I should double the root only under certain conditions. So, before saying "double the root", you should state those conditions (or at least some of them). If we were to write "In root position, double the root", then that's immediately an improvement. Now, after "in root position", I haven't been misled. I'm simply waiting to be told something related to, and significant about, that scenario. And I get it with the three words that follow. The second principle is to tell people why we're asking them to do something before (not after) we ask them to do it. For example, "For more info, see MyAwesomeWebPage" is slightly better than "See MyAwesomeWebPage for more info". In the former, which sounds like a gentle invitation, anyone can stop reading if they judge that they don't want "more info". In the latter, we're issuing an order right out of the gate; and that sounds slightly impolite. And then as an afterthought we add the reason why folks might want to obey our order. So here we should open with "for better clarity". So I would rewrite that sentence as "It gives better clarity, in root position, to double the root". So now I'm told the reason why I might care, up front; then the conditions to which the advice applies; and finally the advice itself. Your sentence has them in completely the wrong order. And I know why: it's because it's easier and quicker to write without thinking about these things. But it's a little more comfortable for your readers if you put this kind of care into your writing. And that's why it's polite and considerate to do so.
"Do not double any tendency tone for improved balance." This one is even worse, because it's also ambiguous. Some people will read that and think: Oh, so doubling any tendency tone gives improved balance, does it? And I shouldn't do that." It should say, "For improved balance, don't double a tendency tone." But again it doesn't define what a tendency tone is.
"The diminished chord on scale degree seven in first inversion contains the leading-tone, and should not be doubled." First, that chord contains the leading-tone no matter what inversion it's in. And second, the way you've worded it, you're saying that the chord shouldn't be doubled". That should say, "The diminished chord on scale degree seven (here it's in first inversion) contains the leading-tone, which should not be doubled." Later you say something very similar, but you correctly use the word "which" instead of "and", so it's clear you're talking about the tone and not the chord.
"The V7 has both the leading-tone and the seventh of the chord, both of which [...] should not be doubled." A lot of folks will think: but how can they be doubled; you have only four voices? So a *preqrequisite* for understanding this slide is the fact that you can omit certain chord factors. You'd have to omit something (say, the fifth) before you even have the option of making the mistake (doubling a tendency tone) that you're talking about. But we don't learn that until the following slide. So, another really vital principle in education is to teach ideas in the right order. You can learn something only if you already know it. Thatt's a strange thing to say; but it rewards thinking about it, and understanding it.
Ok, I've gotten only 3:19 into the video so far, so I'll stop here. But it should be easy to apply the principles I've mentioned everywhere else.
These videos are part a series intended for my in-class use as a university professor. They are supplemental and not meant to be standalone material. Thanks for your comments.
APMT exam tomorrow lmao
Yessirr
I legit forgot everything the night before I’m so fucked
2 day no sleep. Let's Go!
im deadass gonna fail
Rookie gotta look it up an hour before the exam
Very very very very good!
Thank you very much!
We have way too little teachers with a Dr.
This is absolutely clear and understandable for everyone.
thanks a lot!
would love to see maybe a video with even more in depth infos
Oh my is this useful. Im trying to wrap up a guitar course, but for the final assignment I got a bit ambitious and well... Need to research how to properly arrange for a small ensemble (the muse is quite unforgiving :P)
Seriously, very helpful. I wonder though when part writing for instruments how much would the crossings themselves affect clarity? I suppose its very dependent on the instrumentation (if the tone is pleasant across the range, capable of taking over while not being in any way confused then your more likely to get away with it)...
Guess you keep things like this in mind and experiment for effect but always with the understanding that there should be a musical purpose because theres a good chance this will cause issues with and need reworking.
Still I always think of the Great Fugue and how delightful those crossings are, but then again Beethoven spent a lifetime rewriting the rule book, and could get away with making just about anything sound wonderful through his unwavering diligence and prodigious talent.
Anyway wonderful stuff
Thank you, Dr. Meyer!
Very effective video. Thanks a lot. Thanks once again.
Thank you!
Great one; clearly presented, simple and concise. thanks.
Glad it was helpful!
THANK YOU that helps me a lot
''Do not double leading tones and 7ths'' I did not know that.
Explanation was very simple to understand.
Thank you for sharing.
I have a question. If i don't have the root note of the chord on the bass, do i still have to double the root of the chord? Like the last example? Dm/F
Thanks, and general doubling “rules” suggest doubling whichever pitch is in the bass regardless of inversion.
Thanks alot Dr Kati. brief and helpful..nice
I have a question. At the practice example. The 2nd chord. Why does it not have the root in the bass but in the other 2 voices? Thanks for the great video
That's a good observation, Hugo. The doubling of this chord would be better if it were the 3rd of the chord which is doubled instead of the root, but the doubling here does not create any parallels, so it is an acceptable doubling. First inversion chords generally sound "more inverted" when the root is not doubled.
@@DrKatiMeyerMusicTheory thank you for the explanation
At the same time, great composers break rules constantly. The rule is a guide in my opinion.
Neil, You’re right in that composers go outside of the norms of composition, but know that they extensively studied these before they wrote music which violates them.
It is important to note that the syntax of musical composition is deeply entrenched in tradition and these rules are mostly a representation of that tradition. If you want your music to sound logical and flowing, you should abide mostly by the rules and only rarely bend a few for added emphasis.
The spacing part is least clear for me. In the close position example, couldn't an E or G fit on the treble staff, fitting it between the tenor and alto? Thank you for the excellent video.
Not in this example. The tenor is a G4 with all those ledger lines, it makes it a major third below the B in the alto. It might help to write the tenor note in treble clef to see they are, in fact, quite close and no other chord tone can fit between.
Thank you
Very clear lesson
Thank you 👍
Hi guys just a brief question if anyone can answer.
I've been studying classical form like the sonata, rondo, theme and variations and scherzo but sometimes I come across a slower movement which doesn't seem to follow any set form. This is often the second movement of a bigger work such as the second movement to Beethoven's fifth symphony.
My question is how are works like these conceptualised and built? I understand themes and development of themes and motifs and ideas - I'm currently studying Brahms' second symphony.
Any advice towards this would be great.
The forms of slow movements are not as strict as other movements during the classical era (unlike the 1st movement, which most often is in sonata form). There are however a few common ones (in no particular order):
1. The standard ABA or ABABA form. This is the most used form in slow movements. Often, when the A and B sections return, they have more ornamentation or other embellishments than before. A coda is common too. Examples: Beethoven, Sonata No. 15, 2nd movement. Beethoven, Sonata No. 5, 2nd movement.
2. The rondo form. Even though it might seem strange, it is surprisingly common. Examples: Beethoven, Symphony No. 3, 2nd movement. Beethoven, Sonata No. 8, 2nd movement.
3. The sonata form. This too might seem strange but is often featured, especially by later composers. Often, the sonata form is varied from the standard. Sometimes, the composers don't have a development section at all, such as in the second example. Examples: Beethoven, Sonata No. 14, 1st movement. Beethoven, Sonata No. 17, 2nd movement.
4. Theme and variations. Examples: Beethoven, Sonata No. 23, 2nd movement.
Often, double variation forms also occur where 2 themes are varied. In this category, your aforementioned movement in Beethoven's 5th falls. Haydn and Beethoven were especially fond of this. Examples: Beethoven, Symphony No. 7, 2nd movement. Beethoven, Symphony No. 5, 2nd movement.
5. The slow movements can also be even more free in their form, almost improvisatory in character. But this is uncommon. There are no good examples of this, but Beethoven, Sonata No. 21, 2nd movement is the best I can think of. It is rather free, but still follows a kind of ABA form. Check out Beethoven, Sonata No. 26, 2nd movement too!
Good luck with future endeavours!
Very good !
About the practice. Usually in ' II6 ' the doubled tone should be the 3rd one
Fa, yes.
Thank you Dr. Kati
What about the parallel 4ths?
Good explanation tq.. upload more ..tq
what about in atonal, or moreover 1920s style music? I'm one who shuns rules in music, for the composer should create music with all freedom of choice. But then again, I'm more like that of Messiaen, or Eric Whitacre when it comes to voice writing.
These “rules” pertain to common-practice music and its voice leading. Most of the other tonal practices grow/grew out of this tradition, so it’s important to study the foundation of the craft and deviate from there at your will.
@pianxtremeyt I can guarantee you Messiaen and Eric Whitacre know this tradition of “rules”, and choose to adhere to or deviate from them at their discretion. Please stop mistaking willful ignorance for freedom of choice.
Diminished chords use lowercase letters
are these rules applicable only to part writing? I play the guitar and almost all the voicings of chords have some problems with doubling the wrong notes
Part writing generally has to do with 4 independent voice parts, like SATB, and how those voices interact with one another. When you are playing chords on a guitar, the doubling does not behave in the same way because the voices are not independent but adding to the sonic potency of the harmony. Homophony versus polyphony, make sense?
@@DrKatiMeyerMusicTheory Ok I understand so can part writing or counterpoint help at all in homophonic music or is it specifically for polyphonic music?
@@armansrsa It has benefits for homophonic music, like resolutions of chordal sevenths, and voice-leading of tendency tones, like the leading-tone or chromatic pitches. Most of the rules of part-writing apply widely to both homophonic and polyphonic music, but the doubling "voicing" on your guitar is just that, voicing - not necessarily chord spelling or voice-leading. You're still using the same pitches, you're just doubling them with the use of 6 strings for a "bigger" "fuller" sound.
no
Study Ted Greene’s V-SYSTEM , amazing guitarist, quite confident if you’re here on this video, he’s your lost Jedi master lol
May want to fix the identification of the diminished chord at 2:37
May I know why the in practice part the (final) I chord is not closed but open? Thanks in Advance.
Just for illustration. It’s best to stay with the spacing you choose from the beginning, but neither is preferred.
@@DrKatiMeyerMusicTheory Thanks a lot for your Response.....
I don’t dispute the basic premise but as a composer, as Alan Belkin says, the wider question, rarely is “what is effective composition?” Bach or Beethoven occasionally use doubled leading tones, Debussy loves parallel fifths. For me, the Soul comes before rules
You have to know the rules before you act like you know better.
Half knowledge is indeed dangerous
Excellent
6:26 I can not understand why ii6 chord is in open position? Thanks for clarifying.
Open position is when you could fit a chord tone in between adjacent voices. So a chord tone F could fit between the D and the A of the tenor and alto voices. Thus open. If closed, no chord tones could fit.
@@DrKatiMeyerMusicTheory Thank you and now I understood where I am confused. Because I was considering the rule was just valid between alto and soprano. Ok it's also between Tenor and Alto. Is it also valid between Bas and Tenor? Thanks for your patience and kindness as well:)
Ma'am can you do a more simple tutorial with easy english words? These lessons are more valuable for my compositions but there are lot of understanding matters...
I’m sorry. Music theory has very technical words and it is difficult to simplify the terminology. Keep studying - you’ll get it!
@@DrKatiMeyerMusicTheory ok ma'am thank you very much for the response 🙏
Thanks for da rulez!
You say that 7ths are tendency tones. If I have a ii7 chord, the 7th of that chord is the 1st scale degree. In Dm7 the 7th is the note C which is scale degree 1. Is this C now a tendency tone because it sits above a Dm chord?
Yep! You got it. It becomes a tendency because a 7th is a dissonance!
no
In 6:28 how is the root doubled in the II6? Sorry I can't see it!
The ii6 chord is a d minor chord in C major. There are two Ds, one in the tenor and one in the soprano.
love you video!
Hey I don’t understand the spacing rules for upper voices do you mind providing a example with an explanation thanks
Jeremy, the upper voices cannot be farther than one octave away from each other, so if the soprano is on C5, the alto cannot be lower than C4. If the alto is on C4, the tenor cannot be lower than C3.
I need classes of this... please how can I contact you?
I teach at a University in the Midwest US. I don’t teach online courses, sorry!
Why is that 7th chord major?
Which?
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽🤩
0:56
Can you please mam to explain me in sulfa notation
I’m sorry, that would take too long for this topic.
But J. S. Bach has lots of voice overlaps in his chorales... how come?
Here's an example, for better illustrating my question... in his famous chorale "Jesus bleibet meine Freude" (BWV 147), there is this verse "darum laß ich Jesum nicht". The tenor sings it like this: D4-E4-D4-B3-B3-C4-D4-E4-D4
But the bass sings it like this G3-E3-B3-E4-E3-A2-B2-C3-D3. In other words, the bass goes above the tenor in the 4th note. This seems quite deliberate by Bach. But why??? What was he trying to achieve???
I just looked at that particular example and the bass voice is leaping around a great deal. This is very strange, even for Bach. I wonder if it’s not a manuscript typo. In the case of other voice overlapping- especially with Bach- polyphony is very different from the homophonic texture of four-part writing, and while the voices generally stay independent of one another, polyphonic voices can sometimes overlap due simply to their independence and disregard for the other voices resulting in an overlap.
@@DrKatiMeyerMusicTheory Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question, Dr. Meyer! Much appreciated!
I was using the Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe version of the score, which is available at the IMSLP. So I checked the original manuscript from Bach (also available at the IMSLP)... the version I was using does contain a few errors, but not in the case of the overlapping in question (bass sings E4 while tenor sings B3). I also noticed that, in other versions of the chorale (e.g. Anne DeBlois), the notes were swapped, i.e. the E2 was given to the tenor part, while the B3 was given to the bass part. I'm not sure this is a good idea, as I suspect Bach must have had some kind of purpose/effect in mind...
Anyway, your explanation (homophony vs. polyphony) makes a lot of sense. Again, thank you for your time and for all the wonderful videos you have shared with us!
Theory gang
Isn't it "Melody Writing"??? Or is it "Part Writing"?
Melody writing is usually for one voice( according to my syllabus) hence when writing a melody for many voices, we call them Harmonies so I guess it depends on which syllabus you're using
Mam I want twinkle twinkle little star. Four parts sheet
Maybe try searching “Twinkle twinkle chorale”? Or Ah Vous Dirai-Je Maman Chorale.
Need sorpano, Alto, tenor and Bass 😊😊😊. And make what key this song is good t o sing 😊
I do know the rules and how composers broke them im a composer
Can I get your mail ID I just want to show my song which I write
This is my email ID quicksam23@gmail.com
05:00 If you would look at Old Hymnals from the last 100 years, you'll find voice crossing in each and every hymn. Even by composers and editors like Ralph Vaughan Williams.
Thanks for your comment. We are studying music in the Western Art Music tradition, so it’s not unlikely that the style would have evolved within the last 300 years. So you’re absolutely correct that some voice-leading practices have changed during the codification of the rules and practices.
Thank you!