4:05 How funny how an excelent teacher almost can read a pupil mind. Thank you for all the knowledge you share Garret, I learn SO much in this amazing channel. THANK YOU
Brilliant video! Because the choirs I have written for in the past were rather limited in resources, I've always, always written choral work in traditional SATB 4 part style. I'd never considered the problems associated with writing for 5 part (or 6 or 7 part). I've written a couple of pieces for 2 choirs (in antiphonal style), but that posed no problems since the two choirs rarely sang at the same time and when they did, they were singing the same notes--so there were no doubling problems to consider. You've given me a new problem to tackle. I'm going to grab some chorales and hymns and work on rearranging for 5 part. That should keep me off the streets (and out of trouble) for a month or two. Thanks!
In avoiding an A-B consecutive octave (between S2 and B) in the second half of bar 1, you committed one with D-C# earlier (between S2 and T). You can of course argue that this is a lesser "sin", being between inner parts, but also you could give the tenor an A (A3, not A4, of course) instead of a C# and have neither a parallel nor a doubled leading note. That would have the added benefit of making the tenor line a bit less dull. I've found it useful, when in doubt, to write out tables of each possible change of note between chords, and tick them off as you use them, keeping a careful eye on the one from 5th of chord 1 to 5th of chord 2. As a side note, composers like Kodaly and Rachmaninoff didn't seem to regard themselves as restricted to avoid consecutive 5ths in more than 4 parts.
Good thought but if the tenor drops to an A it doubles with the bass, therefore reducing to a four part texture, which I was purposely avoiding for this short extract. If the tenor drops to A it then crosses parts with the following B in the bass which arguably is a more serious infringement. It all helps to consolidate the point that once one is using 5+ parts there are always compromises that need to be made.
Hi There! Great video. On watching it a second time, I saw you tried to avoid octaves by choosing C# instead of A in the second chord but your new 2nd soprano part has created parallels between the 1st chord and the second chord with the Tenor part. Both move from D to C#
Hi Gareth - a really helpful insight to how to go beyond 4 parts. I guess there is also opportunity to add rhythmic variety / variation. the fifth part you scored stayed within the bounds of the 4 part chord quality (major triad stayed as triad/ 7th chord stayed as 7th ); would adding / writing for more voices enable use of extended chords? if the piece used quartal voicings (fourths not thirds) can one mix fourths and thirds ?
This is such a great video thank you. Do you have any videos regarding voice leading and how it relates to accompaniments? I play piano and guitar and sing and have studied 4 part harmony so know how to write for 4 parts but I get confused when thinking about accompaniments. Do accompaniments also need to have good voice leading within the arrangement ? Writing in 5 parts is helpful because it allows for a bassline, a baritone vocal which is what I am and a 3 part chord in the upper register. Can I use the principles in this video to write this arrangement or would that be overkill since the accompaniment is in the background. Would the vocal and bassline be the only two independent "parts" or would the accompaniment be part of the voice leading? Hope I was clear in my question. Thanks again
I too have been thinking a lot about this issue recently. It's nice to meet someone who has the same concerns. They all apply according to the answers below, but the reason I was confused was because there were many songs that did not follow this rule. There are places where the rules are broken, for example by including the melody in the accompaniment range, which could probably be resolved with sound technology.
it can and is resolved by technology, usually by the fact that there is stereo recording and panning... things that Mozart never had in his day@@QLS514
Dear Gareth, that was another amazingly enlightening video. Thank you so much! I have a question and a humble request for you. The question is, how do you view vocal lines crossing in 5P harmony, as in S2 occasionally singing a lower note than A? Mr GF Haendel used to do that frequently. The request would be, if you wish, to dedicate a video to writing 3P or even 2P harmony, that is, what best to drop when you have less than four lines to be happy with. Hope you can do that someday. Till then, thanks a lot and all the best! Greetings from Italy!
That’s most kind. Yes parts often cross in Handel and in other composers when you have contrapuntal lines. That’s absolutely fine. Yes, we could make some 2pt and 3pt videos.
One of the points I’m making is that in 5+ parts there is much more flexibility about the consecutive rules. Avoid them when you can but write them if the alternatives would provide a less satisfactory result.
Surely it's almost impossible to avoid consecutive octaves at some points in these textures. Is there a protocol on what degree of the chord can occur in these parallel octaves? I see that you still have consecutive octaves in the first two chords: D, C# in second soprano and tenor. It seems better than the consecutive octaves involving the A to B in the alto and bass though. I think it's because neither the second soprano nor the tenor are outer voices and also they gel in this general downward movement with just the bass providing contrary motion. With the both the alto and the bass providing contrary motion in consecutive octaves it seems to stand out much more. I dunno.🤔
Hi Gareth, I'm not sure if this is covered by the comments below about extended chords but one obvious solution to adding a fifth part/voice to an existing four part harmony would be to treat the existing soprano part as S2 and add a new S1 soprano part above the existing part? (Rather than squeeze it between the existing S and A parts). Granted, if you have a melody line in the top line I can see this woudn't work but in your examples where it's more of a chord sequence, I can't see why not to do this. Am I missing something? Thanks
one more thing, the C# is not just any 3rd, it is the leading tone... do you still think it better to double the leading tone instead of having the parallels?
You didn't mention the consecutive 8ves between your first two chords. True these are not as offensive since they are between inner voices, but still worth a mention.
The point being made is that once you’re in more than four parts sometimes consecutives become inevitable and theorists recognise greater flexibility in more than four parts.
One of the points I’m making is that in 5+ parts there is much more flexibility about the consecutive rules. Avoid them when you can but write them if the alternatives would provide a less satisfactory result.
In your example you are avoiding at all costs (including a parallel octave) to double any notes (parts sharing notes). Is this just for the illustration or is it something that should always be avoided?
A thought on the “B not up for negotiation” it seems to me that if you allow some chord extensions (9/11/13..) in the harmony this would be a lot richer and easier. For example on minor chords the 7 sounds quite gentle to me, and doesn’t really transform the harmony much.
Western Music ha a Functional Theory of Harmony, how chords in a key relate to one another. Is there something similar to key changes (this make it more exciting, less exciting, etc.)
One of the points I’m making is that in 5+ parts there is much more flexibility about the consecutive rules. Avoid them when you can but write them if the alternatives would provide a less satisfactory result.
I would add that if you do find yourself with unavoidable consecutives, it's considered better to "hide" them in the inner voices, as in this example, because the outer voices are more conspicuous.
Learn Music Online - Check out our courses here!
www.mmcourses.co.uk/courses
Gareth lectures, plays and sings on the fly for over 20mins with out a single um, ah or stumble. So watchable.
You’re most kind
Thanks for this, Gareth:
It would be interesting to have at some point a video on writing for full orchestra from four part and five part sketches
That’s a good idea
4:05 How funny how an excelent teacher almost can read a pupil mind. Thank you for all the knowledge you share Garret, I learn SO much in this amazing channel. THANK YOU
That’s most kind. Much more at www.mmcourses.co.uk
Brilliant video! Because the choirs I have written for in the past were rather limited in resources, I've always, always written choral work in traditional SATB 4 part style. I'd never considered the problems associated with writing for 5 part (or 6 or 7 part). I've written a couple of pieces for 2 choirs (in antiphonal style), but that posed no problems since the two choirs rarely sang at the same time and when they did, they were singing the same notes--so there were no doubling problems to consider. You've given me a new problem to tackle. I'm going to grab some chorales and hymns and work on rearranging for 5 part. That should keep me off the streets (and out of trouble) for a month or two. Thanks!
Go for it!
Your presentation illustrates why I love writing music: it's a giant puzzle to be solved.
It sure is
Always excellent....
Best regards from France
In avoiding an A-B consecutive octave (between S2 and B) in the second half of bar 1, you committed one with D-C# earlier (between S2 and T). You can of course argue that this is a lesser "sin", being between inner parts, but also you could give the tenor an A (A3, not A4, of course) instead of a C# and have neither a parallel nor a doubled leading note. That would have the added benefit of making the tenor line a bit less dull. I've found it useful, when in doubt, to write out tables of each possible change of note between chords, and tick them off as you use them, keeping a careful eye on the one from 5th of chord 1 to 5th of chord 2. As a side note, composers like Kodaly and Rachmaninoff didn't seem to regard themselves as restricted to avoid consecutive 5ths in more than 4 parts.
Good thought but if the tenor drops to an A it doubles with the bass, therefore reducing to a four part texture, which I was purposely avoiding for this short extract. If the tenor drops to A it then crosses parts with the following B in the bass which arguably is a more serious infringement. It all helps to consolidate the point that once one is using 5+ parts there are always compromises that need to be made.
Good work
A pleasure. See www.mmcourses.co.uk for much more.
The utmost useful topic! Thanks!👍
Glad it’s helpful
Very nice...❤️
That’s most kind. Much more at www.mmcourses.co.uk
Hi There! Great video. On watching it a second time, I saw you tried to avoid octaves by choosing C# instead of A in the second chord but your new 2nd soprano part has created parallels between the 1st chord and the second chord with the Tenor part. Both move from D to C#
Yes. Sometimes unavailable in 5 parts and less serious in 5 parts than in 4.
Good stuff! I’ve been curious how the rules of engagement would change as you introduce more instrumentation into a piece.
Glad it’s helpful
Hi Gareth - a really helpful insight to how to go beyond 4 parts. I guess there is also opportunity to add rhythmic variety / variation. the fifth part you scored stayed within the bounds of the 4 part chord quality (major triad stayed as triad/ 7th chord stayed as 7th ); would adding / writing for more voices enable use of extended chords? if the piece used quartal voicings (fourths not thirds) can one mix fourths and thirds ?
All those possibilities certainly exist.
This is such a great video thank you. Do you have any videos regarding voice leading and how it relates to accompaniments? I play piano and guitar and sing and have studied 4 part harmony so know how to write for 4 parts but I get confused when thinking about accompaniments. Do accompaniments also need to have good voice leading within the arrangement ? Writing in 5 parts is helpful because it allows for a bassline, a baritone vocal which is what I am and a 3 part chord in the upper register. Can I use the principles in this video to write this arrangement or would that be overkill since the accompaniment is in the background. Would the vocal and bassline be the only two independent "parts" or would the accompaniment be part of the voice leading? Hope I was clear in my question. Thanks again
Voice leading applies to every part within the given texture. Thanks for your positive feedback
I too have been thinking a lot about this issue recently. It's nice to meet someone who has the same concerns. They all apply according to the answers below, but the reason I was confused was because there were many songs that did not follow this rule. There are places where the rules are broken, for example by including the melody in the accompaniment range, which could probably be resolved with sound technology.
it can and is resolved by technology, usually by the fact that there is stereo recording and panning... things that Mozart never had in his day@@QLS514
@QLS514 😀
@@MusicMattersGB Thank you for always
Dear Gareth, that was another amazingly enlightening video. Thank you so much! I have a question and a humble request for you.
The question is, how do you view vocal lines crossing in 5P harmony, as in S2 occasionally singing a lower note than A? Mr GF Haendel used to do that frequently.
The request would be, if you wish, to dedicate a video to writing 3P or even 2P harmony, that is, what best to drop when you have less than four lines to be happy with. Hope you can do that someday.
Till then, thanks a lot and all the best!
Greetings from Italy!
That’s most kind. Yes parts often cross in Handel and in other composers when you have contrapuntal lines. That’s absolutely fine. Yes, we could make some 2pt and 3pt videos.
Are there parallel octaves between tenor and alto in the first two chords? 🤔
One of the points I’m making is that in 5+ parts there is much more flexibility about the consecutive rules. Avoid them when you can but write them if the alternatives would provide a less satisfactory result.
@@MusicMattersGB Thanks for the clarification, I don't speak English well so I missed the explanation in the video. 🙏
No problem
Mitigated slightly by contrary motion. Best bet to temporarly move into the minor with a sharpened A.
It would certainly be another possibility to use a secondary dominant into b minor or a diminished 7th in b minor to a b minor chord
Surely it's almost impossible to avoid consecutive octaves at some points in these textures.
Is there a protocol on what degree of the chord can occur in these parallel octaves? I see that you still have consecutive octaves in the first two chords: D, C# in second soprano and tenor. It seems better than the consecutive octaves involving the A to B in the alto and bass though. I think it's because neither the second soprano nor the tenor are outer voices and also they gel in this general downward movement with just the bass providing contrary motion. With the both the alto and the bass providing contrary motion in consecutive octaves it seems to stand out much more.
I dunno.🤔
Your thought process is great. If you end up having to write parallels which is the best option of the moment & which options stick out?
Hi Gareth,
I'm not sure if this is covered by the comments below about extended chords but one obvious solution to adding a fifth part/voice to an existing four part harmony would be to treat the existing soprano part as S2 and add a new S1 soprano part above the existing part? (Rather than squeeze it between the existing S and A parts). Granted, if you have a melody line in the top line I can see this woudn't work but in your examples where it's more of a chord sequence, I can't see why not to do this.
Am I missing something?
Thanks
That’s certainly a possibility. Often you’ll want to tuck in the extra parts below the main melodic line.
one more thing, the C# is not just any 3rd, it is the leading tone... do you still think it better to double the leading tone instead of having the parallels?
Yes
You didn't mention the consecutive 8ves between your first two chords. True these are not as offensive since they are between inner voices, but still worth a mention.
The point being made is that once you’re in more than four parts sometimes consecutives become inevitable and theorists recognise greater flexibility in more than four parts.
I would like to see about subject the pantonality, and pantonal music
😀
small doubt in 4 part version u said its a ii7b chord thats Em7 in secound version it coulD be also calleD as G6 CHORD know sir ? IV6 CHORD?
Added 6th chords are used a lot in certain musical styles but in the ‘Classical’ tradition they are usually 7th chords in first inversion
So do I have to develop 5-part harmony from 4-part harmony?
That’s a reasonable approach
Always wondered how it should be.
And, you had a parallel octave (:
One of the points I’m making is that in 5+ parts there is much more flexibility about the consecutive rules. Avoid them when you can but write them if the alternatives would provide a less satisfactory result.
@@MusicMattersGB yes you're right thanks for the explanation
A pleasure. Much more at www.mmcourses.co.uk
In your example you are avoiding at all costs (including a parallel octave) to double any notes (parts sharing notes). Is this just for the illustration or is it something that should always be avoided?
That’s for this short illustration. Shared notes are perfectly possible.
A thought on the “B not up for negotiation” it seems to me that if you allow some chord extensions (9/11/13..) in the harmony this would be a lot richer and easier. For example on minor chords the 7 sounds quite gentle to me, and doesn’t really transform the harmony much.
Not sure what’s meant by ‘not up for negotiation’ but some chord extension is certainly a possibility.
@@MusicMattersGB in the video you said the B was the only possibility and not up for negotiation:)
I can’t think of the context of that but sure, go for chord extension where it works.
Western Music ha a Functional Theory of Harmony, how chords in a key relate to one another. Is there something similar to key changes (this make it more exciting, less exciting, etc.)
Key changes are a factor, along with agitation or relaxation of tempo or rhythm or harmonic rhythm or texture or melodic shape etc
Modulating up a fifth will increase tension. Modulating down a fifth will release tension.
😀
@@StyzeSoulmaker Thanks for that. Does that mean there is a theory of some sort? What is it called so I can find out more.
It’s all based on the circle of 5ths. See our video on the channel
But from the first to second chord aren’t you doubling the leading tone with consecutive octaves?
There do appear to be consecutive octaves on the first two chords between Soprano 2 and Tenor.
One of the points I’m making is that in 5+ parts there is much more flexibility about the consecutive rules. Avoid them when you can but write them if the alternatives would provide a less satisfactory result.
I would add that if you do find yourself with unavoidable consecutives, it's considered better to "hide" them in the inner voices, as in this example, because the outer voices are more conspicuous.
That is absolutely correct
Whoops, the second chord has a very particular major 3rd
It works very well doesn’t it?
NSYNC brought me here
Welcome