Talk:Voice leading

Counterpoint

Sgmanohar 20:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)should this stuff be better integrated with the material on Counterpoint?

Does the idea of voice leading have much application outside of counterpoint? I think not. I also think the material on auditory streams deserves a separate article; one which amplifies the streaming laws mentioned in passing, and that the Voice leading and Auditory stream articles should reference each other using See also: links. yoyo 03:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you requesting an expansion of auditory stream information, or are you saying that the merging of the two stubs was inappropriate? Hyacinth 01:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitions

• "The term 'voice leading' refers to the way in which individual voices move from chord to chord. The best voice leading occurs when all individual voices move smoothly. You can achieve this by moving between chords using the same note or moving up or down by a step in the inner voices of the chord, whenever possible....Chords are voice led..."
  • Thomas, John (2002). Voice Leading for Guitar: Moving Through the Changes, p.3. ISBN 0634016555.

Hyacinth 08:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• "When more than one musical line occurs simultaneously, the technique of composing each line is known as voice leading. Voice leading is present in both polyphonic and homophonic textures."
  • Dunbar, Brian (2012). Practical Music Theory: A Guide to Music as Art, Language, and Life, p.277. Factum Musicae. ISBN 9780578062471.
• "Because the effect of a chord is different depending on how it's approached, how we connect up one chord to the next is important. In classical music this is called voice-leading, a term which refers to the way each note in one chord can be heard as moving melodically to a corresponding note in the next."
  • Humphries, Carl (2009). The Piano Improvisation Handbook: A Practical Guide to Musical Invention, p.108. Hal Leonard. ISBN 9780879309770.

Hyacinth (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Continuity vs relationship

Any reason that "relationship" is preferrable to "continuity" in the lead? Hyacinth 01:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Examples

This page could really benefit from notated examples, even if they are very simplistic. Matt.kaner 21:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vertical and horizontal

The intro paragraph uses "vertical" and "horizontal" without defining them. Anyone know what is meant by this? --Doradus (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to define them, but I lack the software for producing musical example—the obvious way of doing this. Anyone got suggestions? I'm not buying software for the purpose (I used to own Finale). Mac OSX. Tony (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

vertical and horizontal refer to the printed musical score. So, "vertical" refers to the sequence of notes played simultaneously, i.e. harmony, while "horizontal" refers to sequences of notes in time, i.e. melodies.--Todd (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Vertical (music) redirects to interval (music). Hyacinth (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Jargon

What is some of the jargon which needs explanation in the article? Hyacinth (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have my music dictionary close at hand, but in answer to your question, it all boils down to the multiple meanings of words in musical terminology. Think of "tone," "voice," "note," etc. Each of them could fill a page! To someone who got "into" music at the age of one, such problems are barely noticed, and we think and communicate in such terms without problem. But when trying to explain new ideas, it's hard to be precise. In this article, for example, "voice" is being used in a certain way. Think of a choral composition written for SATB (sopranos, altos, tenors, and basses -- or soprani, alti, tenori, and bassi). Each group of singers sings a "part," also called a "voice," which is a sequence of notes, like a melody. All singing together, they harmonize. "Voice leading" simply refers to making the decisions of which notes each voice will sing. In moving to the next chord, should the altos go down a third or up a fourth? Should the tenors jump a diminished fifth or repeat the same note? And so on. It's simply a kind of decision-making used in choral (or other) music composition. The problem is how to convey that idea to the general reader. Unfree (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You deserve thanks from all of us for taking the time to sit down and write this Wiki article.  Voice leading is an interesting and important concept in music.  But in all fairness your article really is in need of more than just being edited.  To make it more readable, and the subject more understandable, your article actually needs to be rewritten.   The reason I'm saying this (and in no way am I putting you or your article down) is that "voice leading" can be viewed as being either a verb phrase describing an act or action (i.e. the act of composing, arranging, or performing music), or as a noun phrase describing a concept in music (i.e., a word that encompasses the various elements and forms of formal and informal music harmony, and how they relate to each other).   It looks to me like you tried to get in a little of both in your article.  By starting your article off with a definition of the verb phrase "voice leading" (something that could be included in the English Wiktionary, for example) you basically provide the definition of the phrase first, which you can then follow up with in your article by describing the concepts of "voice leading" when it is used as a noun phrase.  Here's a brief and relatively correct definition of the verb phrase "voice leading" that I'll offer to you as a way to begin your article:

"Voice leading (also called "parts writing") is the process of applying the formal and informal rules and principles of harmony when composing, arranging, or performing vocal or instrumental music."

You can then take it from there to go on with describing some of the concepts in the noun phrase part of 'voice leading', as you were originally doing in your article.  If you'd like, drop me a line on my Talk page if you'd like to further discuss your article. K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If you know enough to want to know what voice leading is, you know what the jargon means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.166.80.208 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we all knew that, even if we didn't know what voice leading was. Hyacinth (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there any specific terms in the article that need simplification or explanation? If so, where are they located in the article? Hyacinth (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Rather than a problem with jargon, the problem in the article is with the lead, which barely defines the topic, does not provide context, and lacks internal links, never mind summarizing the article. Hyacinth (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Tag removed. Internal links and quotes added. Hyacinth (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Needs a rewrite

Aside from the problems cited above, the use of language is poor. There are sentences which don't quite conform to rules of English grammar ("An auditory stream is a perceived melodic line, and streaming laws attempt to indicate the psychoacoustic basis of contrapuntal music"), over-use of passive voice ("It is assumed ..."), and other problems with the prose. Could someone who knows this subject do a "make over" so this article is comprehensible and well-written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.187.70 (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Dominant thirteenth chords?

I was not aware that dominant thirteenth chords existed in the "common practice period". The example as it is strikes me as bad voice leading. It should be replaced, I think, by something more "common"...

But, as others said here before, the article as a whole probably needs reviewing. A distinction should be made, precisely, between voice leading in traditional counterpoint, in the common practice period, in jazz, etc.

-- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

When did the common practice period end? Hyacinth (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the question is now merely of pure form, as the example showing a "dominant thirteenth" is not there anymore. The important point seems to me to be that of "common practice", not so much the period when it ended (or began). There is a period, say from some point in the 17th century to some point in the 19th or early 20th century, when composers practiced a common tonal system. In the 17th century, some joined this common practice earlier than others, and in recent times some abandoned it later than others. I am not aware that any composer in this common practice ever wrote "dominant thirteenths", i. e. chords that were recognized as such, and as true thirteenths; even the existence of dominant elevenths (or, some believe, dominant ninths) is doubtful. Even Debussy never wrote, that I know, a thirteenth that could clearly be identified as a dominant. I would happily learn more if I was wrong abour this. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Since the example could be put back by any editor at any moment, the question is not of pure form.

Are you saying that I must have misinterpreted the cited text? Hyacinth (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, Hyacinth, I was unable to check Benward&Saker's vol. 2. So far as I know, no composer of the "common practice period" ever wrote a "thirteenth" chord, and no textbook from the same period ever mentioned such a thing. I just checked Schoenberg's Theory of Harmony, which I consider one of the very last textbooks of the "common practice period" (or one of the first after this period): Schoenberg does mention seventh and ninth chords, but neither eleventh nor thirteenth chords.

Your example first shows the "thirteenth" chord as a V7 (G-B-F) with one additional note, E, which might be read as the 13th of G, but which also turns out to be an anticipation of the resolution of the 7th; this is unacceptable in any definition of the "common practice" because the dissonance (F) and its resolution (E) appear together. It then shows the same chord resolving on I9, resulting in parallel sevenths, E-D above F-E, as unacceptable as the previous case. Nothing of the kind could have been written by anyone writing in the "common practice".

I did look at Benward&Saker's vol. 1 (8th edition, however), to check your examples of "Various 'correct' and 'incorrect' voicings of a V/V-V-I progression". Let me stress, first of all, that they use "voicing" in a specific sense which apparently you misunderstood: voicing, for them, is the repartition of the notes of one chord between its various voices, and not the leading of these voices from chord to chord: it has little if anything to do with voice leading. They always put the Roman numerals in the usual way, under the score and not between the staves as you did. Their examples concern I-V/V-V-I progressions, starting from I and ending on I, which makes much more sense in terms of voice leading. And each of their examples is meant to illustrate one specific case of voice leading, e.g. resolution of the 7th of V7/V in your first example. I didn't find your other examples in the 8th edition, but each of them seems to describe a particular case: ^6-^7-^8 in your second example, which indeed is possible only if the first chord is V/V; incomplete final (I) chord if the V7 chord is complete, as illustrated in your third example; complete final chord because the V7 chord is without 5th in your last example. If they are to be kept in the article, all these examples should start from I, with Roman numerals under the score, and in a section devoted to specific rules of voice leading in the case of harmonic successions. The progressions illustrated, indeed, may not necessarily apply in contrapuntal writing. As such, they certainly do not belong to the lead of the article. But such rules of voice leading in the specific case of dissonant harmony seem to belong to an article on Harmony, IMO, rather than here.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting begun

• To begin a revision of this article, I propose a new lead which, I hope, will make clearer what 'voice leading' is. My definition may seem to partly contradict what follows, for instance when I write that the reason why voices of three notes each in BWV 846a produce four chords is that they do not move at the same time, while the following section ("Details") begins by mentioning "simutaneously moving" parts. I intend to continue the revision, but my problem is of assembling the necessary sources and references. In the meanwhile, comments will be welcome.

The example should probably be accompanied by audio files for each of the three lines, a, b and c. If anyone feels like producing these, I'd be grateful.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I added a section on "Voice leading and counterpoint". The two topics obviously overlap and to further show why voice leading should be treated separately involves rather complex technicalities, too complex for Wikipedia, I am afraid...

This should be followed, I think, by a section on "Melodic fluency", which should also deal with Bruckner's "law of the shortest way" and what is called "parsimony" in neo-Riemannian theory, etc. This section could also include a discussion of complex voice leading involving register transfers, etc., showing that parsimony ultimately is a consequence of chords being built from a piling of thirds. I'm working on this.

The existing section on "Principles", which shortly presents some of Fux' rules, really belongs to the article Counterpoint, I believe, and should ultimately disappear from this article.

Let me repeat that I'll gladly receive additional suggestions.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• I added the section on "Melodic fluency" and (reluctantly) removed all the rest of the previous article. The real question seems to me how this article relates to other, more basic ones (such as Counterpoint). I don't think that Voice leading strictly speaking needs much more than this here, and additional details should be found in specific articles, Counterpoint, Schenkerian Analysis, Neo-Riemannian theory, etc.

We should refrain, I think, to try to account here for the shortcomings of other articles: improvements, if needed (I think they are!) should be made there, not here. Wikipedia will gain coherence only through that kind of reciprocal coordination between articles.

I'll stop here for a while about this article, but will gladly participate in further discussions and/or improvement>

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Faulty example

I intend to remove the examples showing "Various voicings of a V/V-V-I progression", now at the top of the article, as several of them are faulty and I don't think it a good idea to begin an article on voice-leading with an example of faulty or questionable voice leading. Also, the term "voicing" seems inappropriate: on the one hand it is not exactly synonymous with "voice-leading" and on the other hand it is never explained in the article. The faults that I see include:

• In the second example, a false relation F#-F between the alto and tenor parts (or, in other words, a lack of preparation of the 7th of V). Such voice leading might be acceptable in some styles, but in general should better be avoided.
• In the same example, a final chord (I) without fifth and with doubled third.
• In the third example, the 7th of V, F, is not resolved by descending on E as it should; on the contrary, it climbs to G, which is faulty. This may not sound that bad, however it is bad voice leading.
• In the V-I cadence of the same example, all four voices are ascending, which is very poor voice leading.
• In the fourth example, the leading tone B does not lead to C. This again is poor voice leading, even if it is acceptable in some circumstances.

It may be noted in passing that all these faults between V⁷ and I result from the fact that it is impossible to have a correct voice leading between these chords if the V⁷ chord is complete: its fifth should be omitted, as any good textbook on harmony and/or voice leading explains.

• Also, it is unusual to have the Roman numerals above the musical score.

I will remove these examples within a few days, unless the originator makes corrections or justifies his intention. In any case, I don't understand the purpose of such examples which hardly learn anything about voice leading in general. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Examples can only be faulty if voice leading is strict counterpoint and not an art.

There are many terms besides "voicing" which are undefined in this article, such as "voice" and "leading".

Examples can never learn anything, as they are inanimate and would hopefully hardly teach anything instead.

Hyacinth (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid, indeed, that rules of voice leading are strict counterpoint (and strict harmony) and hardly art; I suffered enough with that in my Conservatoire years to imagine otherwise. It seems to me that the article as a whole is about the definition of "Voice leading", especially about the definition of "leading"; but you are right and I added a link from "voice" to Part (music), which defines "part" and "voice" and indicates the difference between them. I also added a link from the caption of the example to the Voicing article. But you seem to assimilate "voice leading" with "voicing", which IMO is wrong, as a comparison of the two articles evidences. Keep in mind that I am not a native English speaker, and let me quote the Merriam-Webster online:

Learn in the sense of "teach" dates from the 13th century and was standard until at least the early 19th <made them drunk with true Hollands—and then learned them the art of making bargains — Washington Irving>. But by Mark Twain's time it was receding to a speech form associated chiefly with the less educated <never done nothing for three months but set in his back yard and learn that frog to jump — Mark Twain>. The present-day status of learn has not risen. This use persists in speech, but in writing it appears mainly in the representation of such speech or its deliberate imitation for effect.

In French, apprendre ("learn") and enseigner ("teach") can be used the one for the other, as I recently learned: I had made a bet which taught me otherwise and which costed me a bottle of champagne. I now have learned the reverse in English, but at a cheaper price... Thanks — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I first wrote the above without noticing that you had repeated the same example in both the "Voice leading" and "Voicing" articles. I think that you should make up your mind: it hardly could illustrate both concepts. And whatever your choice, you should explain how it illustrates what you have in mind. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure one image can be an example in more than one article, surely dozens, potentially thousands.

Have you looked at the actual image lately?

Is voice leading important in the art of free composition, or is it a strict set of rules unrelated to composition?

Somewhat unrelatedly, did Schenker describe voice leading and counterpoint as the same thing ("...counterpoint (i.e., rules of voice-leading).") or as independent concepts?

Hyacinth (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should see what you think of Category:Voice leading. Hyacinth (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Hyacinth, I had looked at the actual image, and I still have the same questions, one unimportant: why do you write the Roman numerals between the staves, while everybody else (including the source that you quote) write them under the score? and one more important: in what sense does this example explain anything about voice leading?

I take WP to be an enterprise of vulgarization. Now "vulgarization", to me, means to explain in simple terms things that are inherently complex. One cannot summarize a complex idea in one quotation or one example; one cannot simply answer your questions about strict vs free composition, about the relation between voice leading and counterpoint, nor reduce the concept of voice leading to the few pages that you assembled in Category:Voice leading (of which I cannot but have a rather negative opinion). I give up, Hyacinth, I won't discuss any more, I am tired of this endless dispute. I think that my revision of the article had improved it, but I am afraid that it won't last.

Let me quote Oswald Jonas in his Introduction [p. IX] to the translation of Schenker's Harmonielehre:

"The chief merit of Schenker’s early work consists in having disentangled the concept of scale-step (which is part of the theory of harmony) from the concept of voice-leading (which belongs in the sphere of counterpoint). The two had been confused for decades. Schenker’s operation wrought a complete change even in the external aspect of the teaching of harmony, in that he banned from his handbook all exercises in voice-leading and relegated them to the study of counterpoint."

I urge you to read Schenker's Harmony, which you will easily find on Internet: one of Schenker's purposes in it was to disentangle the complex relation between voice leading and harmony and counterpoint (read in particular §§ 84-89, pp. 154-174). Once you have read that, you may want to read Schenker's two volumes on Counterpoint, which continue on the same topic and define voice leading in the most detailed manner. After that, you'll only have to continue with about 3000 additional pages by Schenker, until Free Composition, and some hundred thousands by Schenkerians (including those on atonal voice leading).

Vulgarization requires a deep, profound knowledge the subject matter.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I congratulate you on your deep, profound, and unprovable knowledge and credentials. Hyacinth (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

History

After User:Hyacinth asked me to take a look at this article, I became interested in the origins of the two more-or-less equivalent English terms (American and British) with which this article is concerned. The lack of helpful data in the usual sources (OED, New Grove, etc.) is more than a little surprising. The OED is especially disappointing, in that it suggest first of all that the American term (the title of this article) dates back only to 1899, whereas the most superficial Google search turns up several American sources more than twenty years earlier, mostly translations of German theory books where the relevant translated term is Stimmführung. On the British side of the coin, OED misleadingly cites "part-writing" to Louis Spohr's autobiography of 1865, but of course Spohr did not write in English, and the translation referred to by the OED dates only to 1969. I do not find the British term as a translation of German writings, but rather as an independent word dating back at least as far as 1872. I can track the German Stimmführung back only as far as 1810/1811, at which point one writer, Hans Georg Nägeli, feels compelled to explain the term as "den Gang der Stimmen", suggesting that it would not be familiar to his readers in the Intelligenz Blatt zur Allgemeinen musikalische Zeitung (Vol. 13, no. 12 (September 1811): col. 50). This in turn leads back to the New Grove, where the French equivalent, conduite des voix is given before the German Stimmführung. While this suggests the German was originally a translation of the French, the trail runs cold here for me. Can anyone help me out here? Rameau describes the concept in the Traité de l'harmonie réduite à ses principes naturels in 1722 (book 3, chapter 4 and following), and gives the “rule of proximity” often attributed to Bruckner, without exactly supplying a specific term though "progressions des parties" could be deduced from his text. —Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That the New Grove gives the French conduite des voix before the German Stimmführung probably merely means that "French" comes before "German" in alphabetic order: I think that the translations in the NG are always given in this order. As to Rameau, it should be stressed, I think, that he makes the "progression des parties" fully dependent on the vertical intervals, i.e. on harmony. This is quite typically French and is one reason why, even today, "conduite des voix" is not a very common notion in French conservatoires. Rameau wrote on ne peut passer d'une Notte à une autre que par celle qui en est la plus voisine (Book 4, pp. 186-7), which indeed may be considered an early version of Bruckner's "Law of the shortest path".

—>Note in passing that the article did include a mention of Bruckner's law, presently (8 February 2015) refered to in footnote 17, but that somebody added a sentence refering it to Schoenberg (footnote 12). Bruckner's law (which is formally stated as a law in his teaching) is not exactly the same thing as a law of the retention of common notes: it still applies when there are no common notes; it is also not exactly the same thing as parsimony, as indicated in the last paragraph of the article; and it is not exactly the same as fließender Gesang (see below).

I don't think that the German Stimmführung could predate the early 19th century, and your quotation of Nägeli is particularly interesting. The German word used in the 18th century for what we call Voice leading seems to be fließender Gesang, as mentioned in the article (see note 13). The earliest mention of this expression that I have been able to trace is in Johann Adolph Scheibe, Critischer Musikus (1745). What the expression denotes is quite general: it does not necessarily concern conjunct movement, it does allow for leaps; some authors relate it to a correspondance with the emotion conveyed by the words sung, etc.

As I tried to make clear in the lead of the article, the concept of voice leading did not really develop as an independent concept before Schenker. It should once again be stressed that voice leading is NOT a concept dependent on the theory of harmony. It concerns counterpoint as well (or even more), and rules of voice leading are style dependent. It may even concern monody.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Hucbald, this is most informative. I agree that the reason New Grove lists the French term before the German is not likely to have anything to do with chronology, but rather alphabetical order. I was grasping as straws, obviously. There remains the question of the relationship between the American and British terms, which encounters a further wrinkle when we discover in Webster's Third Unabridged Dictionary (an American source, obviously) a definition for "part writing" (unhyphenated, unlike the British term equivalent to the American "voice leading") that equates it with counterpoint: "the writing of part music; specif : the art and science of counterpoint". Perhaps this is splitting hairs, and the editors of Webster's Third may well have slipped up here, but there is also a British source that predates Schenker by more than a quarter of a century (Henry C. Banister, Music, Cambridge School and College Text Books, Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co.; London: Bell and Daldy, 1872) and makes a similar distinction between two senses of "part-writing": the first equates it with counterpoint, but the second is "a somewhat wider sense". This is not exactly the same distinction Schenker makes, of course, but rather is defined by Banister (p. 46) as "the writing of succession of chords ; and by Laws of Part-writing, therefore, is meant the principles which regulate the position of chords, or distribution of parts ; the relation of part to part, and the progression of individual parts. In other words, laws of combination, and laws of progression, individual and simultaneous." (Banister's discussion is suspiciously similar to Rameau's, though of course the relationship may be indirect.) Naturally, every writer on music theory will have slightly different opinions about the precise meaning of terms, and this is bound to make trouble for articles like this one. If it is to be mainly about Schenker's specific use of Stimmführung, then it needs to say so. Of course that German word has a history before Schenker, and its adoption in American English (primarily in 19th-century translation of German textbooks, such as Bowman's adaptation of Carl Friedrich Weitzmann in 1879, J. H. Cornell's 1886 translation of Wilhelm Langhans History of Music in Twelve Lectures, or Le Roy B. Campbell's 1899 translation of Jadassohn's ear training text, but also in original texts clearly based on their authors' German training) and the parallelism asserted with the British term "part-writing" (which has no evident connection with translation of German theoretical terms) needs to be addressed in some way. As an American myself, I am at a disadvantage with respect to the British term, but I do not recall having seen it used by British authors in reference to Schenker's theories. Is it possible that, in the UK, a distinction has now arisen between "part-writing" as a term for the pre-Schenkerian senses of Stimmführung, and "voice leading" as a specifically Schenkerian term?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Jerome, not being a native English speaker myself, I am afraid I cannot provide any answer concerning part writing vs voice leading. I note however that in the NGOnline, while "Voice-leading" still redirects to "Part-writing", the last paragraph of the article in the NG 1st edition disappeared (both versions are signed by W. Drabkin). This short paragraph in NG 1 is most interesting for the present discussion; it reads: "The expression 'voice-leading', which is a literal translation of Stimmführung, has come to be preferred in American usage, in spite of discouragement from English and German music lexicographers." I note however that in the English translations of Schenker's Der Tonwille and Das Meisterwerk in der Musik, under the direction of W. Drabkin, Stimmführung is translated as ... "voice-leading"!

This all appears, IMO, to confirm what I shortly wrote in our WP article, "Voice leading developed as an independent concept when Heinrich Schenker stressed its importance in 'free composition'". It seems to me that the concept, before Schenker, was only very loosely defined, probably most often as "Part-writing". "Voice-leading" may have been mainly a Schenkerian term; it does appear in A. Katz' article in the MQ of 1935, then in Salzer's Structural Hearing, etc. – as you imply, it may be considered Schenkerian English, more than American English. But of course, there are the texts that you mention, the translations of Weitzmann, Langhans, or Jadassohn, etc.

I suspect that, before Schenker, "voice-leading" or "part-writing" were more or less synonymous with "counterpoint"; they where also more or less synonymous with "harmony" because harmony often was but a kind of free tonal counterpoint (Schoenberg complains about that in his Harmonielehre; he defines counterpoint as Die Lehre von der Stimmführungskunst, p. 8 of the 1922 edition). It is only in the 20th century, maybe because of H. Riemann, that one began to realize that harmony was fundamentally different from counterpoint.

You raise questions about the scope of the WP article and whether it should state that it is about Schenker's usage. I'd say that, without Schenker, an article on Voice-leading (or, better, on Part-writing) should merely link to Counterpoint. The present Voice-leading article almost unavoidably is about Schenker (this point is made, I think, in the 'Voice leading and counterpoint' section of the article, but not clearly enough, obviously), but it also is more than that precisely because, after Schenker, the concept became an independent one. Also, one may wonder what belongs here, compared to the section on voice leading in the Schenkerian analysis article. This all isn't entirely clear to me and should be discussed further.

A last word about hyphens in voice-leading and part-writing. Perhaps because I am not a native English speaker, I'd see more signification to it than merely a possible difference between American and British English. To me, the hyphen is necessary when the expression denotes the concept as a whole, but not when it may be considered merely an inflection of the verbs "to lead voices" or "to write parts". I'd write, for instance "Voice-leading is very strict in Bach's style", but "Bach's voice leading in this case is unusual". (I ain't sure this distinction is very clear, it may split hairs, but I find it elegant and I like it.)

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your thoughtful and informative reply. I am inclined to agree that, without the Schenkerian angle, this topic would best be folded into the counterpoint article. However, it is clear from the Banister citation that, in British thinking, at least, the concept of "part-writing" had developed a separate existence by 1872, even if this was not as specific as Schenker's construal of Stimmführung. The history of the British term is still not clear to me, and may have a development independent from the influence of the German concept of Stimmführung. This has an interesting alternative—but probably related—meaning in the political philosophy of Schlegel, where "das Recht der Stimmführung" refers to the rights of different factions to express their positions in a political assembly, with an eye to harmonizing their differences in a larger context—Stimme in German has the sense of "vote" as well as "voice", so Stimmführung in Schlegel's context means "leading the vote". (This is another chronological puzzle to me, since Schlegel comes up with this term at almost exactly the same time it apparently first emerges in music theory—around 1810. Which is the chicken, and which the egg?)

As for the hyphenation issue, British usage does tend to favo(u)r hyphenation of compound nouns more than the American practice. (Your Bach examples appear more British than American to me.) German favors hyphenated compounds even more strongly than British English, and of course is well-known for merging such constructions into solid compounds with greater alacrity than either American or British practice in the English language. Mr. Drabkin is, I believe, an American, and so would have few qualms about using "voice leading" when translating Stimmführung. His British editors at the New Grove, however, may have urged him to express the UK point of view in the original version of his article. I wonder whether the removal of that paragraph may represent a shift in attitude on the part of the New Grove editorship.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Jerome, a few short remarks:

• Mattheson, even although he does not use the word Stimmführung, writes: Das Gehör empfindet hergegen oft grössere Lust an einer eintzigen wolgeordneten Stimme, die eine saubere Melodie in aller natürlichen Freiheit führet, etc.(Vollkommene Kapellmeister, 1739, p. 137, §26) ("The ear on the contrary often feels more pleasure at a single, well controlled voice that leads a neat melody in all natural freedom"). See also §27, p. 138: ...Stimmen mit geschickten Gängen und Führungen der Klänge wol zu versehen....
• As I hinted to in my last revision of the article, I think that "part writing" is not exactly synonymous with "voice leading" because the first almost necessariy involves several parts, while the second might concern the leading of one single voice.
• Bill Drabkin is British, Emeritus from Southampton and past editor of Music Analysis. I believe he is responsible both for the inclusion of the paragraph in NG1 and its exclusion from NG2.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A very interesting passage from Mattheson, thank you. I suppose it is a natural enough construction in German, just as progressions des parties can be inferred from Rameau's text. A characteristic Wikipedia conundrum comes up in connection with equating (Am.) "voice leading" with (UK) "part-writing", since there are so many "reliable sources" that state this is so. Although I am no expert in this area, my utter inability to track the British expression to 19th-century translations of German theory texts does suggest that there may be no more than a casual similarity, rather than identity of meaning. Indeed, my mistaken assumption that Drabkin must be American is based solely on an unfounded prejudice that there is little interest in Schenker on the part of British music theorists, and this in turn is reinforced by an apparent lack of the term "part-writing" in writings on Schenkerian theory, including Drabkin's. Perhaps my readings are too shallow in this area.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"Part writing" is only inappropriate if taken overly literally. The term is intended to be understand in context of voice against voice counterpoint, such that the "part" being "written" is always against at least one other voice, or intended to be. The first voice in all counterpoint, polyphony, and voice leading is always a single part, thus all counterpoint and voice leading includes the writing of a single part. Hyacinth (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not that "Part writing" would be inappropriate, but that it is not EXACTLY synonymous with "Voice leading", especially as a translation of the German Stimmführung. In part writing, as you say, each part being written is intended to be against at least one other voice; even the first part written is not meant to remain alone. Voice leading on the contrary stresses the leading of single voices and may concern the leading of one single, monophonic voice. This may be considered a slight nuance, hardly worth being taken in account. From a historical point of view, however, it is of some importance, as appears for instance in the evolution of the "Voice-leading" article from the 1st (1980) to the 2nd (2001) edition of the New Grove (see above). — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I misread your earlier comment, reversing the two terms. If "voice leading" can refer to one part written outside of counterpoint, polyphony, or even homophony, the article should definitely mention that. Hyacinth (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions

A lot of good work has been done on this article, and these are minor suggestions to an excellent work in progress:

1. The lede gets too deep in the weeds too quickly. If I were a non-musician who stumbled on this page, I'd be lost from the very first two words: "In counterpoint...". If you don't already know what voice leading is, you won't know what counterpoint is either; I'd suggest "In music theory...". Also, the first sentence doesn't really say that voice leading is something which occurs in the context of a chord progression. Finally, the list of quotes is a little much; it could go somewhere, but not necessarily in the lede.

2. The word "voice" isn't really explained up front, and would be confusing to a beginner. I realize there's a link to Part (music), but at least some reference should be made to this meaning in distinction to human vocal apparatus, since it's so central to this topic. And there needs to be a clarification that the concept applies to individual lines within a single polyphonic instrument (such as a piano) as well as to ensemble music, even though some of the rules might be slightly different.

3. The first example seems unnecessarily complex. Why not just use a hymn or chorale, rather than this arpeggiated prelude? In the big scheme of things, it is proper that we explain that voice-leading applies even when the individual melodic lines are only implied, as in this example, but that seems like a more advanced topic which gets in the way of explaining what voice-leading is, and what principles apply to it.

I'll drop by in a week or two, after my next concert is done, and roll up my sleeves and help. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I like (most of) your suggestions, Wahoofive. A few additional comments:

• I wouldn't replace "In couterpoint" by "In music theory", because voice leading is more than merely a matter of theory. Why not "In music, voice leading ..."?
• Voice leading does not necessarily occur in the context of a chord progression: it may concern one single voice, in monodic music. This, to me, is an important point, one that differentiates "voice leading" from "part writing".
• The idea that "voice leading" is American English, "part writing" British English is somewhat misleading. As mentioned earlier on this talk page, the first edition of the New Grove (1980) expressed some rejection of the term, but this disappeared from the second edition (2001) and of the online version, and "voice leading" now seems widely accepted in British English.
• On the other hand, I wonder about "part leading, or the guiding, management, progression or conduct of parts". Is such terminology ever used? If so, separate articles redirecting to this one might do better.
• I also agree that the quotations are somewhat confusing. Some merely duplicate the first sentence; others would need more discussion and might better appear later in the text.
• The entry Voice (polyphony) redirects to Part (music) (a does Line (music), by the way). It is there, perhaps, (I mean, in "Voice (polyphony)" that the definition of "voice" should be dealt with; the article should then be made more than a mere redirection. The definition (by Forte) of "voice" in "Part (music)" is definitely wrong, as it does not envisage the case of polyphonic instruments, that you rightly mention.
• About the first example, I don't quite agree. The idea that it is meant to convey is that whether one reads the Prelude as a succession of chords or as a superposition of voices is basically a matter of point of view. To show that, one needs an example that can be read both ways; to read a choral as a succession of chords would seem, if not impossible, at least farfetched to me. You write that in the Prelude the individual lines "are only implied": I think that they are much more than merely implied, and I trust that Bach would have disagreed with you on this point. There is an early version of this Prelude in the Clavierbüchlein of Wilhelm Friedemann, with corrections in the hand of his father (see p. 29 of the facsimile available on IMSLP). JSBach writes the corrected passages in half notes, the direction of the stems indicating the different voices (he, or more probably Wilhelm Friedemann continues on p. 30 in whole notes, but only once the five voices have clearly been established).

But let's discuss this further before making changes that might appear questionable later. (I, at least, won't make any change without further discussion). — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What I meant by "implied" in the Bach example is that the chords and their voices have to be extracted as a separate step (lines (b) and (c) in the example), which is perfectly legitimate analysis but seems like a distraction from the main topic. But I am also eager to hear additional views. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I can see your point. Yet, to extract a voice leading from a piece basically written as a succession of chords (or chords from a contrapuntal piece) could appear somewhat devious as well. A chorale, on the other hand, is written with strands of voice leading of which there is nothing particular to be said. But the important thing about voice leading may be, I think, that it can be found in (or extracted from) pieces that are not obviously contrapuntal. The main advantage of Bach's Prelude from WTC I is that at first glance it is neither chords nor voice leading in five voices. Could you suggest an example that would correspond to what you have in mind? (No need to produce a score, I'll find it.) — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we don't mean the same thing by "voice leading." I always understood it to mean a set of common practices (I always hesitate to use "rules") governing which chord member in one chord moves to which chord member in the next chord when the harmony changes; for example, that the seventh of a chord usually resolves down by step. If your understanding differs from this in some fundamental way, we'll have to resolve that before we can structure the article.

I'm not challenging the legitimacy of the Bach example, or even asking that it be removed. I'm just suggesting that it be preceded by a more homophonic example which illustrates the concept in a simpler way. Then we can go on to say something like "In more complex music, composers continued to resolve the voices based on their underlying harmonic structure", which the Bach would illustrate perfectly. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I realize that voice-leading patterns evolved from Renaissance counterpoint, where it was based on intervallic considerations rather than "chords"; not sure how to integrate that into the article, though. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Although moving from one chord to the next indeed involves voice leading, I doubt that you would consider that the voice leading in, say, a fugue by Bach, is only about movements from chord to chord. Voice leading must be seen in a broader context involving not only Renaissance counterpoint, but also medieval polyphony and post tonal music.

The very first examples in the article, at the right of the lead, do illustrate voice leading in harmony (with some ugly faults, such as a doubled leading tone producing parallel octaves in the third example; but I had to abandon arguing about that). However, one cannot discuss voice leading in these examples merely in terms of the harmonic progression V/V-V-I. Voice leading is for instance about the fact V⁷ is avoided unless f is included in an f#-f-e chromatic movement (doing otherwise would be possible, but somewhat bold). The fifth example forces the voice leading in order to produce a complete final chord, with three leaps, B-G, G-E and G-C, with a direct fifth between alto and bass and all four voices descending: this is poor voice leading. Etc.

Such discussions cannot be carried out merely in terms of harmony: they involve complex contrapuntal rules.

For more about voice leading, see these pages:

• http://www.aim.uzh.ch/morpho/wiki/uploads/Teaching/Callender_etal08MusicTheory.pdf
• http://csml.som.ohio-state.edu/Huron/Publications/huron.voice.leading.html
• http://mts.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/2/175.short
• http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic133047.files/Straus_2003.pdf
• http://dmitri.mycpanel.princeton.edu/files/publications/scalesarrays.pdf
• http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.11.17.3/mto.11.17.3.nobile.pdf
• Etc.

— Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Justifying my recent changes to the article

1) I removed these definitions from the lead for the following reasons:

• "The progression of the individual parts or voices in a vocal or instrumental composition." (Merriam-Webster)

This definition fails to stress that the individual parts are mutually dependent and cannot be lead or progress in isolation from each other.

• "Voice leading is the term used to describe the linear aspect of musical writing. The individual melodic lines (called voices) that make up a composition interact together to create harmony." (Benward & Saker, 2003, p.149)

Benward & Saker appear to believe that any polyphony would result in harmony; but in reality some of the rules of voice leading predate harmony by centuries. In addition, "linear" is unclear: it may indeed denote the existence of individual lines in a polyphonic strand, but might also concern the inherent linearity of something that unfolds in time.

• "Voice leading is the smooth movement of the notes (or voices) from one chord to the next, and it applies to any type of voicing." (Baerman, Noah (2003). Big Book of Jazz Piano Improvisation, p.19)

At the level of definition, voice leading does not yet imply smooth movement, which will appear only as one of the recommended voice leading rules. The notion of "chord" is irrelevant here, as is that of "voicing", which would make believe that voice leading is about a succession of chords – overstressing the importance of harmony even more than in Benward & Saker above.

• "The art of connecting chord to chord in the smoothest manner possible." (Schonbrun, Marc (2011). The Everything Music Theory Book, p.174)

Same remark: the notion of "chord" is irrelevant.

• "Each voice in the texture is led from one pitch to the next in a way that forms a pleasing melodic line while producing in consort with the other voices a pleasing succession of harmonies." (Turek, Ralph and McCarthy, Daniel (2014). Theory for Today's Musician, p.166. Routledge.)

The notion of "pleasing" would need explanation. And the "succession of harmonies" once again overstresses the importance of harmony, as most of the definitions above.

I think that the remaining second alinea of the lead should also disappear, as it is not entirely confirmed in the article; but that deserves more careful consideration. The fact that voice-leading rules apply even in two-voice works questions the mention of outer/inner voices here; the definition of "parsimony" is only partly exact; and "transforming a chord sequence in a masterwork", well, may not be that easy!

Different voice leading within the V/V-V-I progression. (Note:V/V means the dominant of the dominant) Play: 1st^ⓘ (Benward & Saker, 2003, Vol. I, p.269); 2nd^ⓘ (Benward & Saker 2003, p.274); 3rd^ⓘ (Benward & Saker 2003, p.276); 4th^ⓘ, 5th^ⓘ (Benward & Saker 2009, Volume II, p.74.) and 6th^ⓘ (Benward & Saker (2009), p.195.)

2) I removed the example reproduced hereby for several reasons:

– To propose a progression of chords as an example of voice leading may be misleading in that it once again overstresses harmony. A better example might include devices stressing the relative independence of the voices involved, e.g. retardation or syncopation; the corpus of real music abounds of such examples.

– It is quite strange that the examples begin so to say in the middle of the progression, at V/V; it does not become obvious that these chords were dominants of the dominant before the progression reaches I, which raises a question that has little to do with voice leading. Progressions beginning at I, i.e. I–V/V–V–I, would have been more enlightening and I cannot imagine that Benward & Saker did not show them in this complete form.

– The 3d example is faulty as written, with D–B–C in the top voice and C–B–C in the tenor; it does not correspond to the audio file provided. The fact that the name of the midi file includes "Chopin" (and that others include "Bach") makes me suspect that the example given here summarizes a real musical excerpt in Benward & Saker.

– The six examples ultimately show variants of the same voice leading and differ only from each other by the voicing of the chords. The example, besides, also appears at the beginning of the Voicing (music) article.

3) The change of the subtitle "Terminology" into "Related terms" and the changes in this subsection are self-explanatory, I hope. References may be needed.

The section on "Inner and outer voices" needs complements, but that will be for later.

Questions to users 73.186.189.163 and Woodowl1234

Dear Colleague(s), You may or may not be one and the same person: let's say that my questions concern both of you without any attempt to address any of you more specifically... I thank you for your interest in bettering this article, but some of your recent changes puzzle me. Did you read this talk page, where some aspects of the article in its recent state are discussed? Let me list my questions:

• "Voice leading is the way that musical parts (voices) set up and achieve melodic, harmonic and formal goals using pitch and rhythm."

I don't quite realize what you mean by "melodic, harmonic and formal goals": shouldn't this be defined somewhere? So far as I can imagine the kind of goals you might have in mind, I don't see why they should be achieved "using pitch and rhythm" only. Wouldn't dynamics, articulations, and the like, contribute to these goals? Is voice leading only a matter of pitch and rhythm? These questions also concern the few phrases that follow, about "different weights on arrival" (?) or "the role of outer voices" (about which more below).

• "Voice leading practices can be codified into rules for pedagogical purposes."

But haven't voice-leading practices been first codified [necessarily "into rules": how otherwise?], long ago, for compositional purposes?

• "A more nuanced view of voice leading principles is found in the theories of Heinrich Schenker. Schenkerian analysis examines how the outer voices work together to establish form in common-practice music. See Linear progression for an example from Beethoven's Sonata op. 109.

This I utterly fail to understand. I what sense do you consider Schenker's view "more nuanced"? More nuanced than what? In what sense can you consider that Schenkerian analysis "examines how the outer voices work together to establish form"? Do you have a source for such an astonishing statement? As to the example from Beethoven's op. 109, it is mainly intended to show the phenomenon of "leading voice" (or leading linear progression), which is only a very particular case of voice leading...

• "Although pacing a piece’s various arrivals is the most important result of voice leading, Western musicians have tended to teach voice leading by focusing on connecting adjacent harmonies because that skill is foundational to meeting larger, structural objectives."

Once again, I don't understand. In particular, I don't understand "pacing various arrivals". And when do you think composers began to focus on adjacent harmonies, if they ever did? Can you really believe that connecting adjacent harmonies is "foundational to meeting larger, structural objectives"? Do you have a reference for such an astonishing opinion?

• "On a chord-to-chord level, common-practice conventions dictate..."

This indeed sounds like The Complete Idiot's Guide to Music Theory (one wonders who is the idiot, the author or the reader): these "conventions" are much older than any idea of "chord-to-chord level"!!!

• "one of the main conventions of common-practice part-writing is that, between successive harmonies, voices should avoid leaps and retain common tones as much as possible. This principle was commonly discussed among 17th- and 18th-century musicians as a rule of thumb."

Can you quote 17th- or 18th century theorists justifying such a claim? The quotations from Rameau (and Masson) that I had added to the article seem to me quite unique in these centuries, and hardly repeated before the 19th century.

• "File:BWV941 Voice leading...A Neo-Riemannian perspective on voice leading in mm. 3-7 of J. S. Bach's Little Prelude in E minor, BWV 941."

I at least, as author of this example, would never describe it as "a Neo-Riemannian perspective on voice leading"! I wrote it (for other purposes) as a Schenkerian example, and thought that it might serve to explain a voice leading among pitch classes; but that is hardly neo-Riemannian!

• "Schenker attributed the rule to Cherubini, but Cherubini's conception was more in line with his 18th-century peers, saying only that conjunct movement should be preferred."

Can you document this statement? Cherubini's conception does not seem widely shared in France in his time (or before), and the German conception of the 18th and 19th centuries certainly was in favor of "melodic fluency", not conjunct movement.

• "As the Renaissance gave way to the Baroque era, part writing reflected the increasing stratification of harmonic roles. This differentiation between outer and inner voices was an outgrowth of both tonality and homophony. In this new style, the outer voices took a commanding role in determining the flow of the music and tended to move more often by leaps. Inner voices tended to move stepwise or repeat common tones."

You may not be the first to say this, but I remain utterly puzzled on several counts. First, the differentiation beween outer and inner voices: I merely don't see this differenciation happen, in the domain of voice leading at least (Hindemith's übergeordnete Zweistimmigkeit is something else). Second, why should it grow out of tonality and homophony, and how? And from where comes the idea that the upper voice could "move more often by leaps"? Do you have references for any of these?

• "A Schenkerian perspective on these roles shifts the discussion somewhat from "outer and inner" to "upper and bass." Although the outer voices still play the dominant, form-defining role in this view, the leading soprano voice is often seen as a composite line that draws on the voice leadings in each of the upper voices of the imaginary continuo."

I would have thought that, in any composition, the "upper and bass" voices are the "outer voices". I never thought that "in a Schenkerian perspective" the outer voices had a "form-defining role" and I don't think that Schenker ever said that. We obviously don't have the same edition of the Cadwallader and Gagné book (I was not aware of a 2010 edition), but in my edition very little support is given to the idea of the leading (?!) soprano often seen as a composite line. It is true that they give an example (example 3.22 in my edition, 2011) where the upper voice produces three voices of the imaginary continuo, but that is rather a rare case.

• "Approaching harmony from a non-Schenkerian perspective, Dmitri Tymoczko nonetheless also demonstrates such "3+1" voice leading as a feature of tonal writing."

In my edition at least (but we may once again have different ones), Tymoczko is not speaking here of "tonal writing" but of Josquin Desprez and other Renaissance composers. It is true that the bass voice often plays a different role in tonal writing also, but Schenker had recognized and stressed that long before Tymoczko, and Rameau before both of them.

I will gladly read your answers about all these (and please open a Wikipedia account, which would make discussions easier). — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have been watching these recent edits myself, and would have asked many of these same questions had you not gotten there first, dear Hucbald (and, as usual, with greater thoroughness than I would have managed). I, too, look forward to the response(s) of user(s) 3.186.189.163 and Woodowl1234 (the latter of which does appear to be a registered user, BTW).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Response to User:Hucbald.SaintAmand

Thanks for your questions. Sorry about the delayed response.

"Voice leading is the way that musical parts (voices) set up and achieve melodic, harmonic and formal goals using pitch and rhythm."

I'm thinking of goals in a quasi-Schenkerian perspective, so, yes, pitch and rhythm would be the dominant formative parameters (the rhythm guiding how you interpret the relative importance of pitches). Generally speaking, musical goals are extremities that are prepared (and often led from) in a linear way. The goal of a melody, for instance, is usually its high-point. More broadly, musical goals are the fulfillment, sometimes in unexpected ways, of expectations created through established patterns.

"Voice leading practices can be codified into rules for pedagogical purposes."

But haven't voice-leading practices been first codified [necessarily "into rules": how otherwise?], long ago, for compositional purposes?

No, that gets the priority backwards. Voice-leading practices are always broader than the rules to describe them. That's why rules serve pedagogical but not compositional purposes: they help students notice the basics and thus have a context for more unusual usages. Considering unusual usages "broken rules" gives the traditional rules a primacy they don't deserve. The final arbiter of what works musically is always actual usage, not abstract rules.

"Into rules" is somewhat redundant, but not entirely; it helps clarify the contrast implicit in "codify" with "practices."

Schenker and nuance

Schenker's view of voice leading is "more nuanced" than the basic part writing rules in para. 2.

Regarding that Schenkerian analysis "examines how the outer voices work together to establish form" — I fail to see how this claim is astonishing. That's *precisely* what it does. The Urlinie is composed of various permutations of the upper sounding voices and the Bassbrechung derives mostly from the bass. Together, these lines show the analyst's interpretation of the most important pitches at various hierarchical levels within the fundamental structure. These most important pitches reveal the piece's form at various levels. These layers of detail, the procedures by which they're established, and the analytical goals toward which they are directed all provide many, many layers of nuance beyond what's encapsulated in simple chord-to-chord connections.

Now, regarding form I suppose a Schenkerian analysis *could* be in conflict with traditional forms (e.g., sonata), but I'd always give preference to the actual music than the prescriptive form since the traditional form is just a schemata anyway. (Dahlhaus gives a more involved discussion in "Models of Unity in Musical Form.") Schemata were meant to be messed with.

Now the Beethoven example may not establish all these points, but by your own admission it is an example of how voice leading works in a Schenkerian perspective. It makes a useful starting point.

on arrivals and the chord-to-chord level

"Although pacing a piece’s various arrivals is the most important result of voice leading, Western musicians have tended to teach voice leading by focusing on connecting adjacent harmonies because that skill is foundational to meeting larger, structural objectives."

By "pacing various arrivals," I refer to the power of voice leading to help us understand "yes, we've reached this formal goal" or "no, we have not." On such example would be the difference between cadence forms (PAC, IAC, HC, etc.) at various transposition levels (PAC vs. TPAC, etc.). By dwelling longer in a particular harmonic region, the composer can, for instance, create a sense of stability or build tension depending on the harmonic and voice leading context of that region and the voice leading within it. One of the features of sonata form that shows pacing happening at various arrivals is the difference in large-scale harmonic rhythm between the exposition, development and recapitulation. The large-scale harmony is more or less static in the recap, moves slowly but decisively in the exposition, and very quickly in the development (which is why the retransition dominant pedal is useful, because it helps signal the upcoming change). Now, the cadences the define the harmonic regions within a piece aren't the only elements that signal long-range voice leading, but they do compose a crucial part of it.

How a composer connects adjacent harmonies is absolutely "foundational to meeting larger, structural objectives." Every expectation a composer creates derives from a stable pattern. If the connection between harmonies is not predictable, the listener will notice, even if they cannot articulate what they're noticing. This is the basis for the prohibition on parallel perfect intervals. Such motion suggests that these intervals are unstable, which fights against the larger common-practice usage that fifths and octaves are hallmarks of resting points and consonance.

I make no claim that composers focus *exclusively* on adjacent harmonies. I likewise don't think you're suggesting they *never* focus on adjacent harmonies. Both are absurd, and neither are intended, so that's a moot point.

What I am claiming is that the pedagogy has focused on connecting adjacent harmonies. And that point is easily demonstrable. Among the many textbooks that do this, you can look at Kostka/Payne or Benjamin/Horvit/Nelson/Koozin, the latter of which has a tidy "Checklist for Part Writing" (252) focused exclusively on chord-to-chord connections. For older examples, such connections form the basis of Schoenberg's Harmonielehre and of figure bass treatises such as José de Torres's “General Rules for Accompanying” (1736). And then there's the Huron citation (http://www.music-cog.ohio-state.edu/Huron/Publications/huron.voice.leading.html), for whom "the traditional rules of voice-leading in Western music" refer almost entirely to connections between adjacent harmonies. While it is true that these works go beyond adjacent connections, it is also true that they all treat connecting adjacent harmonies as the foundational skill preparatory to learning larger harmonic practices.

Now the very specificity for which you criticize this sentence — "On a chord-to-chord level, common-practice conventions dictate..." — is precisely my defense.

I explicitly state we're talking about chord-to-chord connections to contrast this discussion from long-range voice leading.

Likewise, I refer explicitly to common-practice conventions because even before Rameau, musicians were thinking in terms of adjacent harmonies (see the aforementioned figured bass treatises). That they were not thinking in those terms at a much older date is irrelevant because I'm deliberately limited the discussion to the common practice (per the section heading).

Being explicit is not treating readers as idiots; it's ensuring they're on the same page. Which I hope we can do, too.

"This principle was commonly discussed among 17th- and 18th-century musicians as a rule of thumb."

I based this on my study of figured bass manuals. I'll get back to you on citations.

Voice leading example

I apologize that I misunderstood your example. I'm afraid I still don't understand, though. How exactly do these arrows show voice leading among pitch classes? They seem simply to show how a harmony is respelled rather than the connection between voices (e.g., D-sharp to E in the bass). What did you have in mind?

Cherubini and Schenker

I can claim "the more in line with his 18th-century peers" part, but the rest of that sentence seems to come before my revisions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voice_leading&oldid=699691880. At this point, a year later, I'm not sure why I added that clause (unless I had more specific examples in mind from the aforementioned treatises). For now it can easily be restored to "Schenker attributed the rule to Cherubini, but Cherubini had only said that conjunct movement should be preferred."

What examples do you have that Cherubini's conception does not seem widely shared in France in his time? (This is a sincere question, not a challenge.)

Renaissance onward

"First, the differentiation between outer and inner voices: I merely don't see this differentiation happen, in the domain of voice leading at least (Hindemith's übergeordnete Zweistimmigkeit is something else)." What do you have in mind when you say "the domain of voice leading"?

What I have in mind is what Karpinski describes in his *Manual for Ear Training and Sight Singing* (chapter: "Introduction to Voice Leading"), differentiating between part (the rhythmic adjacencies) and voice (the stepwise adjacencies or octave displacements). In this view, in homophonic music (the dominant common-practice texture), inner voices do tend to move more by step whereas the larger leaps tend to be concentrated in the outer voices. (In the sentence beginning "in this new style," "more often" is a comparison to the inner voices, not to the previous style. That can be clarified in the article.)

"Second, why should it grow out of tonality and homophony, and how?"

This differentiation grows out of homophony as a defining feature of the texture itself. In order to maintain the focus on soprano and bass, the alto and tenor have to remain relatively less active. George Mackay discusses this idea in *Creative Orchestration* pp. 39-41, 53-58.

The differentiation also grows out of tonality inasmuch as it is the outer voices that govern cadence forms.

Schenker and Tymoczko

"I would have thought that, in any composition, the 'upper and bass' voices are the 'outer voices.'" Now you're just being difficult. My distinction is clear both from the usage of "upper" in the paragraph and from common sense. (Why would I use the comparative "upper" to describe the "top"?)

Being away from my library for the holidays, I don't have access to my copy of Cadwallader and Gagné (or Tymoczko) with me, so I can't comment further on your specific examples (we can discuss it later), but I can say that the 2010 edition is the hardcover. 2011 is the paperback. They appear both to be the third edition.

On both these points, I know you don't know me from Adam and I haven't been active on this page for a while (as I clearly should have been), but if you could tone down the snark it'd be appreciated.

Woodowl1234 (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Response to User:Woodowl1234

Thanks for your responses. I am sorry if I sounded aggressive: I may be too often guilty of this fault. Keep in mind, however, that I am not a native English speaker, which at times does not really help me. But let me stress that your English is not always entirely clear to me – and this seems to me less a problem of language properly speaking than one of clearly grasping the (musicological) concepts. Keep in mind that a WP article should be understandable to the layman.

First paragraph

Let me begin with your changes in the first paragraph of the article. Until you modified it on 18 January, it read:

Voice leading (American) or part-writing (British), is the set of rules regulating the melodic movements of individual parts (voices) in all kinds of polyphonic music, or the application of these rules by the composer, especially in a Western classical music context. The expression "voice leading" is used for any kind of music that can be considered to include several voices, i.e. for instrumental ensembles, solo polyphonic instruments (keyboard instruments, lutes, guitars, harps and the like) or vocal ensembles.

This became:

Voice leading is the way that musical parts (voices) set up and achieve melodic, harmonic and formal goals using pitch and rhythm. Often, a variety of parameters work together to produce a different weights of arrival, including "the interaction between chords and lines within harmonic progressions [...], the role of outer-voices counterpoint, the types of melodic motion, the retention of common tones, [and] the treatment of dissonance.”(1) Monophonic lines also exhibit voice leading.

(1) Terefenko, Dariusz (2014). Jazz Theory: From Basic to Advanced Study, p.33. Routledge. ISBN 9781135043018.

To which I'd make the following comments:

1.1 I don't think it justified to remove part-writing as the British equivalent to the American "voice-leading". The New Grove Online still redirects from Voice leading to Part-writing and, in the first edition of The New Grove, William Drabkin had written "The expression 'voice-leading', which is a literal translation of Stimmführung, has come to be preferred in American usage, in spite of discouragement from English and German music lexicographers". I think that the British (including Drabkin himself) changed their mind about this, but anyone comparing our WP article with the New Grove would be troubled.

1.2 I still don't quite see what you mean by "melodic, harmonic and formal" goals. You write (hereabove) that "generally speaking, musical goals are extremities that are prepared (and often led from) in a linear way", but that leaves me even more puzzled. It what sense can a musical goal be an "extremity"? Can one be "led from" (?) a goal? You add that "The goal of a melody, for instance, is usually its high-point", and you claim to view that "in a quasi-Schenkerian perspective"; but if Schenker possibly considered melodic goals, I don't think that these ever were high-points. Musical goals certainly are the fulfillment of expectations, but these do not always concern the voice leading which, in turn, is not necessarily concerned by such goals. To make things short, this definition of Voice leading as the way in which parts set up and achieve goals needs a lot of additional explanation.

1.3 Is "a" in "a different weights" a leftover from an earlier formulation? Never mind. What do you mean by "weight", here? The weight of the goal, of the extremity, of the high point? I have no access to Terefenko's book, but the former formulation of this quote, in an earlier second paragraph of the article, does not provide any light:

Principles of voice leading in jazz include "the interaction beween chords and lines within harmonic progressions [...], the role of outer-voices counterpoint, the types of melodic motion, the retention of common tones, the treatment of dissonance [...]."

There is no question of "a variety of parameter [that] work together", nor of "different weights", but of "principles of voice leading in jazz"...

1.4 The earlier version of this first paragraph clearly linked voice leading with polyphony (but, I admit, without justifying this statement) and, therefore, mainly with Western music. You remove that and, in the place, you write "Monophonic lines also exhibit voice leading". This certainly is a point that needs clarification. William Drabkin, in the New Grove, says that part-writing [i.e. voice leading] is "an aspect of counterpoint and polyphony", and I personally would stand on this side... This probably reflects a deeper misunderstanding between us about what voice leading really is.

I don't want to be aggressive, Woodowl1234, but the truth is that I understand so to say nothing of your first paragraph.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Second paragraph

You removed the paragraph devoted to voice leading in jazz and in pop music, which indeed did not really fit in the introduction to the article, and you replaced it by this:

Voice leading practices are often codified into rules for pedagogical purposes. In these settings, "voice leading" is often synonymous with "part writing." These voice leading "rules" are usually applied in exercises in four-part harmonic writing and in 18th-century counterpoint. David Huron has demonstrated that many of the standard pedagogical rules have a basis in perceptual principles.(2)

(2) Huron, David. "Tone and Voice: A Derivation of the Rules of Voice-leading from Perceptual Principles" Music Perception, Vol. 19, No. 1 (2001) pp. 1-64.

You are probably right to make a distinction between voice leading itself and its (pedagogical) rules: the former version, defining voice leading as "the set of rules regulating the melodic movements of individual parts", was unduly careless about this.

I don't quite see however why it is only here that you mention "part writing", apparently associating it with rules. Note that the question of "part writing" vs "voice leading" has been the subject of an extensive discussion here (see higher on this page, Talk:Voice_leading#History); I am not sure to remain in complete agreement with what I said there, but certainly some of this discussion should make its way to the article itself. Nothing in it would support the idea that "part writing" is more concerned with rules than "voice leading" itself.

I certainly disagree with the idea that "voice leading 'rules' are usually applied in exercises in four-part harmonic writing". Voice leading rules apply mainly in contrapuntal writing, and if they are applied in exercises in harmonic writing, it is because of a confusion between harmony and counterpoint that arose in 19th-century teaching (first of all at the Paris Conservatoire after Catel, I think) and that still exists with many teachers of harmony. We may later have to discuss the role of Schenker in this, but obviously the importance given today to the matter of voice leading is the result of a clearer understanding of the respetive roles of counterpoint and harmony. And it might be argued, I think, that a relative lack of interest for voice leading rules in the 19th century was caused by the confusion that I mention above. In any case, I think it essential, in this WP article, to stress the link between voice leading and counterpoint. It is in this context that one can say (as was said before your modifications) that the rules are more relaxed in jazz or pop music.

Note that while voice leading rules may appear "pedagogical" today, they were thought in earlier times to be inherent in the music itself and to belong to what may have been considered musical universals. There is little need to enter here a dicussion of an "archeology of epistemology" à la Foucault, but as a historian of music theory I consider that reducing voice leading rules to pedagogical ones does not do justice to most of the history of these rules. About Huron's article, similarly, I'd say on the one hand that his claim that voice leading rules derive from perceptual principles is trivial, and on the other hand that he does not fully demonstrate that they originate in those particular principles that he describes – he does not really make that claim, either.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Third paragraph

Your modifications continue and you write:

A more nuanced view of voice leading rules is found in the theories of Heinrich Schenker. Schenkerian analysis examines how the outer voices work together to establish form in common-practice music. See Linear progression for an example from Beethoven's Sonata op. 109.

I fail to imagine how you could consider Schenker's view "more nuanced". To begin with, more nuanced than what? If I were to describe Schenker's view of voice leading, I'd think as expressions such as "more developed", "more extraordinary", "more dramatic", or the like. The fact is, probably, that Schenker created the modern view of voice leading, the one which justifies the very existence of this WP article.

The statement that "Schenkerian analyses examines how the outer voices establish form" still leaves me utterly astonished, and your answer above does not clarify it. Nothing in Schenker's theory of form (which remains rather puzzling; see [1] for a recent publication) allows such a statement. You write above that the Schenkerian Urlinie describes permutations in the upper voices above the Bassbrechung. But upper voices + bass certainly are not the same thing as the "outer voices". The Urlinie describes "the most important pitches" only in a most abstract way: some of these pitches may not be present in the score at all (as in the Beethoven example in Schenkerian analysis#Linear progression). Frank Samarotto writes, in his abstract in the book mentioned above, that "Schenker’s Ursatz may be an effective model of tonal unity, but that very unity renders its connection with form unclear.": the connection that you make between Urlinie and form is highly questionable. But, more important, I think that deducing the Urlinie from the musical surface is only remotely related to describing the voice leading – and, if there were a relation, certainly not a "more nuanced" one.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Pedagogy?

Later, you write:

In the 19th century, as music pedagogy became a more theoretical discipline in some parts of Europe...

Can you explain that? Before the 19th century, voice-leading rules were described in treatises that were hardly pedagogical (e.g. Rameau's Traité). The creation of the Paris Conservatoire during the Revolution changed that and music theory became a concern of the Conservatoire's pedagogy. This, at least, is how I view the evolution, but you seem to envisage it the other way around...

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(To be continued)

Response to User:Hucbald.SaintAmand

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I want to take the time to give them the proper response they deserve, but in the few moments I have tonight I just wanted to address one point. The first thought I have in mind regarding your headings "Second Paragraph" and "Pedagogy" is that it seems we're pushing in different directions regarding pedagogy: I'm coming from a "let's start from present teaching" perspective and you're coming from a "let's contextualize this historically" one. If I'm understanding that correctly, I like and respect the more historical direction you want to take things. As we continue the conversation and revisions, let's find ways to highlight that.

At the same time, I think it's worth addressing what you called the "confusion between harmony and counterpoint that arose in 19th-century teaching (first of all at the Paris Conservatoire after Catel, I think) and that still exists with many teachers of harmony." That's why I'm so intent on making a distinction between how voice leading is taught in high schools and colleges in the United States (which is my point of reference) as opposed to the larger uses toward which it may be put. Although we are coming at this from different directions, it does seem we're united in wanting to get that distinction across — that voice leading deals with more than bad pedagogy suggests.

Woodowl1234 (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

To Woodowl1234. One question you ask boils down to whether Wikipedia English is to be considered an US project, or an English speaking, or an international one. I am not sure to be entitled to answer this. My own feeling, especially knowing the French and German versions of WP, as well as a few more local ones (and the reason why I participate here) is that I understand en.wikipedia as the international version. But I'd very much like to hear the advice of others on this point.

Should we start from "how voice leading is taught in high schools and colleges in the United States" (or, even worse, from some "Idiot's guide" to music theory), or from the conceptions of American Schenkerism, or from those of Schenker himself, or from a historical context? It seems certain to me, at least, that we should not start from "bad pedagogy" – even if it were the most common.

My feeling is that the challenge of WP is to produce an encyclopedy that is better than any in existence, without any obvious "original research". We are in the situation of medieval theorists, whose challenge was to produce novel theories based on quotations from recognized authorities. It is feasible and I know of some WP article which do fulfill the task to a level of excellence. Some of them are recommended reading in some US Universities! I'd very much like our "Voice leading" article to achieve the same.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Several recent additions removed

I removed several recent additions, among others by Gtabor, because I don't think that they belong to an article about Voice leading. But I'd hate to do so without explanation:

• Rules concerning the augmented second and the "tendency tones": these are rules concerning the melodic conduct in common practice music, but melodic conduct is not the same thing as voice leading. [The article should make this clearer: I'll come back to this on another occasion.]
• Chord spacing. These rules concern the pedagogy of harmony and in no way voice leading properly speaking.
• Chord voicing and doubling. Here too, the rules concern harmonic writing, and not voice leading.

Let's discuss this further, if needed. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hucbald.SaintAmand, Thank you for your help revising the page, and I agree that some of the rules I added don't directly apply to voice leading. The only problem is that the page for part-writing, which these rules do apply, redirects to voice-leading. In the second paragraph of the page, we state that voice-leading and part-writing are often synonymous. "Voice leading practices can be codified into rules for pedagogical purposes. In these settings, 'voice leading' is often synonymous with 'part writing,' and the 'rules' are usually applied in exercises in four-part harmonic writing and in 18th-century counterpoint." Chord spacing, voicing, and doubling are definitely subcategories of part-writing. If these subjects don't belong in voice-leading, do we need a separate page for part-writing? I feel like separating this information across several pages makes it less accessible to students studying four-part harmonic writing. Gtabor —Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Gtabor, if you read above on this talk page, you will see that the matter of part writing also is under discussion. There is no reason to suppose that part writing (which mainly is the British equivalent to the American "voice leading") is primarily pedagogical. The statement that you quote is bound to disappear, in my opinion, but this must first have been further discussed here.

Your rule of "chord spacing" specifically refers to a pedagogical convention where the students are asked to write for the theoretical vocal ranges of soprano, alto, tenor and bass. [The exercises written in this convention ain't even vocal music; and human voices, needless to say, know other ranges as well.] This tradition was created in European Conservatoires in the 19th century. Having been taught in that tradition, I can confirm that the voice spacing has no consequence at all on voice leading.

Chord voicing and doubling similarly concern the presentation of single chords and say nothing of the way to pass from one to the next: it concerns neither voice leading nor chord progression – or only indirectly.

These matters may be dealt with in a section of the harmony article [also much in need of revision] on pedagogy, where they would figure much better than here.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hucbald.SaintAmand,

After reading the discussion above, I completely agree with your statements regarding the distinction between voice-leading and part-writing. Like others have said, voice-leading is about the horizontal motion of a melody (singular voice) from one note to the next. Part-writing is the term used to describe the writing of parts. For example, the Merriam Webster definition of part-writing is, "the writing of part music". If you agree, I think it would be beneficial to make the distinction now and separate the two pages. I'm really looking forward to hearing your feedback. --Gtabor (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Gtabor. I am aware, but I very much regret, that what I wrote could be understood as you do. It is true that while the word "part" almost necessarily presupposes that there are several (otherwise they would not be parts), "voice" could concern a single line and "voice leading", therefore, could be about a single voice. However, it usually is not used in that meaning (more often described as "melodic conduct") and, in German similarly, Stimmführung is not often used outside a polyphonic context. The main meaning of "voice leading" implies polyphony, and it would be very wrong to convey the idea that contrarily to "part-writing", it could mainly, or even usually denote melodic conduct. "Voice leading" and "part-writing" are so to say synonymous and I think therefore that the pages should not be separated. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hucbald.SaintAmand,

I think that the term voice-leading has developed over the years to include both your interpretation and mine. The term "melodic conduct" isn't used widely anymore, and I believe it has become synonymous with voice-leading. Looking at the statistics involving Google searches is a good tool for seeing modern-day usages of the two words. According to Google Trends Voice-leading vs Melodic Conduct, compared to the number of Google searches for voice-leading, less than 0.5% of people worldwide searched for melodic conduct. Therefore, I can safely argue that the term melodic conduct is no longer relevant by today's standards. To keep this page relevant, we need to define voice-leading to encompass melodic conduct.

Based on search results for the term "part-writing," I can also conclude that Google believes it is more useful to relate the term "part-writing" with "four-part harmonic writing." If most users who search for part-writing are looking for four-part harmonic writing, I don't think it's safe to conclude that voice-leading and part-writing are synonymous.

Based on user data, I believe the best course of action is to define voice-leading to encompass melodic conduct and the interaction of melodic lines within polyphony (possibly as different chapters), and make the page "part-writing" either it's own page or redirect to "four-part harmony." --Gtabor (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Gtabor, I suggest that you make the Google comparison replacing "part-writing" with "part writing" without hyphen. So what? Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Fools Rush In ...

I hesitate to do this but .... as an average reader with a decent grasp of the English language and some acquaintance with a variety of music (I built pipe organs at one time, but my favorite musician is perhaps Alice Cooper), the paragraph below is far better than the jargon-filled meaningless mishmash which Mr Woodrow has introduced.

"Voice leading (American) or part-writing (British), is the set of rules regulating the melodic movements of individual parts (voices) in all kinds of polyphonic music, or the application of these rules by the composer, especially in a Western classical music context. The expression "voice leading" is used for any kind of music that can be considered to include several voices, i.e. for instrumental ensembles, solo polyphonic instruments (keyboard instruments, lutes, guitars, harps and the like) or vocal ensembles."

In fact, this paragraph is more concise and explanatory than the paragraph which now introduces the article and I wish I hadn't had to come to the talk page to read it. Woodrow, my dear, you do not make me proud to be an Amurrican :( The entire country seems to have gone off on a tangent where we can't actually do anything, but boy can we blab and blab until the facts are so well obfuscated that no one has any idea what we are talking about. That probably comes from prioritizing the "finance" so-called industry over every other aspect of life, but I digress ... I vote for a return to the quoted introduction. 116.231.74.1 (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Analysis of the Bach piece, BWV 941

The analysis given in the article as an example of "neo-riemannian theory" is wrong - and the analysis is otherwise rather straightforward: the soprano voice is clearly moving by consecutive ascending thirds (not by any measure an odd movement) throughout the shown section (D#-F#, E-G, F#-A, then in a step-wise motion (passing through the G) resolves the F (the subdominant of C major) of the G dominant 7th chord to the E (the mediant), while the alto mimics the soprano a sixth lower (F#-A, G-B, A-C, and then holding a B to resolve on the tonic of the following C major chord on the second beat of bar 8 of the prelude). And the bass is simply harmonizing in arpeggios (E minor - B dominant 7th - E minor - D dominant 7th (5th degree of G) - G dominant 7th (5th degree of C) - C major ...). As such, I have removed the WP:OR from the article (since it had no ref anyway) and removed the image as well. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to make this clear: the Bach piece is much better served with an analysis according to standard classical harmony concepts, which were likely familiar to Bach himself (which is also what I just did in the above comment) than some more modern ideas which probably don't have much link with the compositional ideas present in the piece. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me just ask for a clarification from you here: Are you familiar with the principles of Neo-Riemannian theory, and find fault with the example in that framework, or are you objecting that "Bach didn't think that way" (as you seem to be saying)? The illustration you removed was meant to illustrate the accompanying phrase, "Neo-Riemannian theory ... decomposes movements from one chord to another into one or several 'parsimonious movements' between pitch classes instead of actual pitches (i.e., neglecting octave shifts)." It seems to me that it did a perfectly adequate job of making clear what that means. If you disagree, could you please explain to me what I am missing, preferably with citations from the literature?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I am objecting that Bach most certainly did not think that way. If you want to have an illustration identifying the accompanying phrase, then make sure there is also a source for that (since the analysis (although, yes, it was correct) that was present didn't have one), and don't analyse a piece with concepts which are not (or maybe loosely) related with it's composition (for example, analyzing any fugue simply according to the rules of harmony and voice-leading (and ignoring that a fugue is not primarily vertical writing (i.e. harmony), that it's more horizontal (i.e. counterpoint - repetition of the thematic material and of the counter-subject(s) among the voices)) would be equally wrong). 135.23.202.24 (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, let me gently point out that this article is about voice-leading theory, not about Bach's compositional thought processes. It is also just your opinion that Bach did not or could not have thought in this way (unless of course you are prepared to offer a reliable source to support that position). You are perfectly correct that the illustration was not attributed to a source, and it was mainly for this reason that I did not revert your edit immediately. If in fact it is taken (as I suspect it may be) from the cited book by Tymoczko, then it should say so. If this can be ascertained, would you have any further objection to its inclusion? (An indignant refutation of the analytical validity for Bach on historical grounds would, of course, require its own reliable source.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, if there is a source analyzing that particular piece of Bach in that way (and then, I guess that probably more reliable sources would analyze said piece (if they do analyze it) in the "traditional" classic way), then yes I'll let it stand, and I'll keep my opinion about Bach's compositional thought processes (and the general ideas and applications of tonal harmony) to myself. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Right. I have checked Richard Cohn's article (cited in that paragraph), and the Bach example is not his. On to Tymoczko, then. If it is not there, then the example must be considered original research, and has no place here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bach example is not in Tymoczko, it comes from a paper given by N. Meeùs at the Mannes Schenker Symposium in 2013 and that I had read. It was to be published in Gamut 7/2, 2014, but that publication appears, say, ... postponed. Awaiting this publication (which may never come), it probably remains original research for the time being, unless the author published it elsewhere. I'll try to know more about that. In any case, I agree with Jerome Kohl that Bach's opinion about this analysis isn't really relevant. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Realizing that the example under discussion has in the meanwhile been published, I restored it with its reference in Gamut. I modified the caption because it has not been published as an example of neo-Riemannian theory, but as one of Schenkerian Uebergreifen. It certainly is a modern view of voice leading and could illustrate neo-Riemannian as well as Schenkerian theory. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)