Polaris

I disagree with the idea that harmonic progression should arise as a mere byproduct of following the rules of counterpoint. Some of the worst, most aimless-sounding music I've ever written came about as a result of writing counterpoint without considering the resulting harmonies as entities in their own right. I would even go so far as to say harmonic progression is more important than counterpoint. Plenty of nice-sounding music has limited contrapuntal value, whereas very little music with poor harmony is going to sound appealing. This is because human beings mainly perceive wholes (in music, this is harmonies), with the parts within those wholes being of lesser prominence.

Another composition of mine, written today:

Another one:

Revised the two previously posted compositions:

Two short compositions written today:

So far, this is the best canon I've written:

I composed this short piece today. It was largely an experiment.

Nice music. I didn't hear anything that seemed out of place when I gave it a listen. True, musical memory is definitely a factor involved in determining how well-received a musical gesture will be. That's why, for example, a modern audience will often accept things like unprepared dissonances without batting an eyelash. Most people today have been exposed to such things all their lives and therefore hear them without being in the least shocked or surprised.

Especially taking care when writing the outer voices is sound advice, I'd say (and something I've seen a great many music theorists recommend). The outer voices are normally more audible than the inner voices, so it's particularly important to compose them gracefully, whereas the inner voices can get away with being relatively bland. There's good precedent for this approach, as well, given that Mozart, one of the most brilliant composers, is said to have started by writing the outer voices and only later filling in the middle ones.

That's a really beautiful fugue. Kudos to you for composing it. Anyway, my point isn't really that cross relations, chord regressions, etc. shouldn't ever be used so much as it is that such devices undermine the smoothness of the musical texture. A similar statement could be made of introducing dissonance into a piece, but we all know dissonance has its place in music. It just has to be used in a carefully controlled fashion. The same can be said for cross relations, chord regressions, and some of the other things mentioned in this thread.

One thing I forgot to mention is cross relations. There are two forms of them. One is the juxtaposition of a note and its "altered" form between two different voices (e.g. using the raised seventh degree in a minor key right after using the same key's flattened seventh degree in another voice). The other is the outlining of a tritone between a pair of voices, particularly when they both move in stepwise fashion. Both cross relations, especially the latter, tend to sound harsh and unmusical.

Revisiting this thread years later, now that I've learned more about what makes music tick. One of the main "secrets" (I put the word in quotation marks because it isn't particularly obscure knowledge) I've found--and I don't recall anyone mentioning this here--is the fact that chord progressions sound best when the chord roots progress rather than regress. Progress means: move up a second or down a third or up a perfect fourth or any inversion of the aforementioned motions. Doing this creates an impression that the music is moving forward rather than rowing against the current. It's surprising to me no one mentioned this, because it's fairly common knowledge among music theorists and, even when not spelled out by them, can be inferred by looking at a typical map of "allowed" chord progressions. Another piece of advice I've discovered for myself is to be very careful with what chord inversions you use in succession. The ear keeps track of where the root of each chord is positioned, and changing inversion can therefore create an impression of an awkward leap even when the voices appear to move smoothly. As such, it isn't a bad idea to ensure that the chord roots proceed in a melodious fashion. One idea I reject is that minimizing the distance the voices move creates a more pleasant effect. By that logic, you may as well not move the voices at all for the entirety of a composition. Another piece of advice I reject is that keeping a common tone in one voice leads to a better effect than doing the opposite. The musical literature is rife with examples where the common tone is taken up by a different voice while the one that carried the tone moves up or down. Generally, it sounds fine. One thing that sounds definitely bad is, of course, placing tones within a critical band of each other. This usually happens when composers put major or minor thirds down in the bass range. The effect is commonly referred to as muddy, and for good reason. Other than that, I can't think of any particularly great advice for writing good chord progressions that isn't common knowledge to anyone who has studied counterpoint and harmony very extensively. If anyone has some further thoughts on the subject, though, I would love to hear them.

Not entirely happy with these, but I'll post them anyway:

Made several edits to last night's canon:

Last canon of the day: