Originally Posted by
Corda1983
I'm probably opening a can of worms by ripping into this interesting but old thread! It is a really great debate though and one I wanted to chime in on.
I, like a lot of people here, spent about a year studying four-part harmony. I was taught all about parallel 5ths, not doubling the third, resolving dissonance, faulty and correct progression etc etc. I must have done about a hundred Bach Chorales - and got most of them wrong in the process!
Then I got into studying works by other composers. Suddenly, my music teacher spent most of his time explaining why Mozart or Haydn or Beethoven chose NOT to follow a particular rule of four part harmony. I was disillusioned - why the hell did I have to learn all this just to find out practically every brilliant composer found ways out of it to realise their masterpieces?!
As time went on I started reading more scores and moving away from Classical into 20th century, film scores etc. I was utterly confused to find composers like Carl Orff writing more parallel 5ths than you could shake a stick at. Composers like Schoenberg and Stravinsky clearly gave about as much thought to four-part harmony as they did to what socks they were going to wear that day. I studied John Williams pieces to find his chords floated about all over the place; sometimes he used a lot of harmonic rules, other times he seemed to be arranging trombone or horn chords any old way. I recently studied the LOTR scores; as you can imagine (and probably hear) the harmonic progressions in those scores are often very basic, with chords often moving by step up and down and wherever Howard Shore wants them to go. In today's modern world of guitar barre chords and rock/pop music the concept of four part harmony seems utterly redundant. It's theoretically old and, more importantly, seems musically useless - why should I arrange my harmony so specifically when there are rock musicians playing everything in the same voicing and making some of the most loved music ever heard!?!?
Then, I realised something. I hear a female singer improvising on some TV show. She was singing a line of music and her voice went up to a high C-note and down a semitone to B at the end of a melodic phrase she was making up. I knew instantly what was happening. This was a leading note. I knew what chord I'd need to use to prepare the resolution of the phrase (V, or V7, to I of course!). I instantly began reckoning back from that, thinking of how this whole phrase could have been harmonised.
The reason this felt "natural" to me was a combination of instinct (we all have some instinct about music, that's why she was able to improvise such a melodic line), but also musical theory. Four part might not be strictly useful in today's modern musical world, but it's damn helpful and has given me an innate sense of musical flow that I might have had subconsciously but could never have expressed.
The difference it made to my composing was significant. Before I used to know what I wanted but not really know what it was theoretically. Today before I've even sat at my piano I can have a melodic line in my head and already hear what's going on: I VI ii vi etc. Does this make me a better composer? No, probably not. Does it make me faster, more able to visualise my ideas and contextualise my musical thoughts? Absolutely.
Whilst I know this is not all strictly four-part technique (you don't need to know four-part to know chord progressions), it was learning four part that enabled me to do it. It also enables me to work quickly and subconsciously understand what I'm trying to do: I can now quickly realise when I want to write in close writing, or open writing. It's also useful for more subtle part writing; if I want to write a 9th into my next chord, what are the implications musically? I could just stack it straight in there, or divide the strings and get it in that way. But knowing four part might enable me to do it as effectively as possible. Maybe I'll introduce it on the oboe and then let it resolve before omitting the oboe.
My point is simple; four part isn't very useful. The little tricks and tips and concepts that filtered into my brain, however, are massively useful. They've shaped the way I can compose and whilst I don't believe you need to learn four part for two years or something, I do reading a few books, practicing a few Bach Chorales and paying attention to why composers break rules is important.
It can be compared to any other art form with good results really. Why do we read Shakespeare? Absolutely useless by today's standards; nobody reads or writes like that. If you want to paint like Pollock or Bacon do Hirst do you need to study the Renaissance artistic style? Do you need to study at all?
The strict answer is no, but the real answer is more subtle. You don't NEED to, but you really should. You learn to express yourself by challenging expression itself. If you're rebelling against four part, or feel it doesn't suit your compositions, you can only really make sense of that rebellion when you know WHY it doesn't. I can hear a piece these days, like the 'Hobbiton' theme from Lord of the Rings for example, and instantly understand why it was harmonised the way it did; why it matters texturally, why it has to be that way. It's because the block-chording technique, with lots of 5ths and open movement, sounds more ancient, somehow more stoic and timeless. I feel I only really understand this because I've had the opportunity to study it.
So, to the four-part naysayers I say; just learn the basics. Know what a consonance and a dissonance and a resolution and preparation is. You probably won't ever think in those terms when you compose but you'll be surprised how quickly you start realising why your melody has to take a certain direction, and subconsciously understanding how your harmony can support it. You'll probably deviate a lot in your work, but it's so much better being able to say "stuff four part, it doesn't suit my needs here" than saying "this probably works...". Sure, you can be an amazing composer with no real theoretical knowledge. But you can be an amazing composer who KNOWS they've done the best thing for their music with theoretical knowledge. I'm no expert, but sometimes I hear a piece of music and think "it's good, but there was something not as good as it could have been". You get a buzz when you've written a piece of music and truly made the decisions you've made in it; when to use voice leading, when to block chord, when to leave big open gaps, when to write dense chords, when to add a dominant 7th or a 9th, when to bring in that 11th or resolve to that major 7th instead of just the tonic. Doing a bit of light studying doesn't make you better or give you more options, it just allows you to make more informed decisions. You can always forget everything easily, but remembering everything is only possible for those who have taken a bit of time to learn from others before them...
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks