Importance of rules in choral writing...

I'm curious on everyone's view.

At uni I have been studying all those lovely rules about 4-part harmony; e.g. no parallel octaves/fifths, no parts crossing, all parts written in the average ranges etc...

But recently when I performed in the choir of Beethoven's 9th symphony, I noticed that he 'broke' just about every rule I have been taught.

So really what I'm asking is, how important is 4-part harmony to you? Is it just an educational tool to get us on the right track...or is it pointless?

The generic line is, "you have to learn the rules before you can break 'em."

Learning four-part harmony isn't pointless, because regardless of whether or not you deviate from standard practice, you'll still need to understand the functional purposes of all the fundamental concepts. If you write parallel octaves, you'll know that you'll be getting a hollow sound and drawing attention to it. If you do cross, you know you'll be losing clarity among the voices and setting up a more "jumbled" choral soundscape. Etc.

Besides, learning the fundamentals of 4-part harmony opens up a whole "process" that you can always fall back on as a reliable compositional element, and it's from that that you start taking the creative initiative to add your own personal touches by breaking the rules when necessary.

basically you can ignore any rule you want as long as you have a halfway decent reason to do it.

or not. It probably doesn't matter.

I doubt he broke every rule. Chances are your confusing what he did. For example, a lot of people think that when they see a voice doubled that it is an example of parallel's. (in some sense it is but the rule is not violated because it doesn't apply)

For example, there are very few cases in Beethoven's work where there are parallel's and usually those cases where it happens are special.

The reason for the rules is because when you are starting out you are not as keen on what not to do because your ears are not as developed. The rules are there to give you a good foundation and were found by a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. So when the masters "break" them either they didn't break them and you just think they did because you don't understand them fully or they broke them on purpose(and rarely by accident).

When the novice writes parallels, say, he does them by accident from not being aware of what he did and its implications. Is it always bad? not necessarily but if you don't know you did it then how can you know if its bad or it? (and since your ears are not as developed how can you know if it sounds bad or good just because it sounds "ok" to you?)

In fact, since these rules were derived from the great masters we know they must have not used them much(so they actually didn't use them is the point). Of course Beethoven didn't create the rules so he could break them but someone did and those people who did is the people you are modeling(such as palestrina). But guess what?!?! Beethoven also tried to model them as he studied the same rules as you did!

Now of course these "rules" are stylistic properties of those composers that they were derived from. Obviously they only apply to that style of music. But since you used Beethoven as a model you need to realize that Beethoven uses those rules too. He started out just like everyone else learning basic music theory and such. Its best to assume that if there are any deviations from the rules that you have learned that he did it on purpose cause he had such a strong sense of what the rules did and didn't.

(But chances are you are just getting confused about the rules. For example, there are some cases where parallel's are allowed between independent voices even though to the novice it would seem there are parallels)

[...] all parts written in the average ranges etc...

But recently when I performed in the choir of Beethoven's 9th symphony, I noticed that he 'broke' just about every rule I have been taught.

[...]

Yes, those high F-4s in the bass are killing...but that part is the most beautiful! You can break the rules if you have a good reason to do that, but you must learn them before.

I'm curious on everyone's view.

At uni I have been studying all those lovely rules about 4-part harmony; e.g. no parallel octaves/fifths, no parts crossing, all parts written in the average ranges etc...

But recently when I performed in the choir of Beethoven's 9th symphony, I noticed that he 'broke' just about every rule I have been taught.

So really what I'm asking is, how important is 4-part harmony to you? Is it just an educational tool to get us on the right track...or is it pointless?

if you think that Beethoven "broke all the rules you've been taught", then you either were poorly taught, or you misunderstood those rules. To the very best of my knowledge, Beethoven did not break any rules when writing the vocal parts of the 9th symphony. As a matter of fact, what works in that piece is how he stretched the rules, without going against the fundamental REASONS behind those rules.

Let me just correct one "rule" you appear to have been improperly taught: there is absolutely NO stricture against part crossing in vocal music. It has always been a perfectly normal and regular part of vocal writing.

There is a difference between writing a concert work and writing an exercise for a class. When a teacher imposes restrictions on vocal range it is to facilitate the learning process. If your class sings your harmony exercises (as all my harmony classes in the past did), then it is normal that the teacher recommend you attempt to keep vocal ranges more limited.

I have sung in opera choruses where the basses were expected to sing to low C (below the bass clef), and baritones were expected to have a full throated high G above the staff. In those same works, the soprano sections were expected to have a high C. But then, these were semi-professional choruses, singing repertoire pieces, not a high school class singing 4-part harmony exercises.

Never confuse the rules of your exercises with the rules as they are applied to the "real world" of music.

I'm curious from looking at the discussion of the 9th choral section, what is it that constitutes a stellar performance of the piece? I'm doing a film about Beethoven's 9th called Following The Ninth: In The Footsteps of Beethoven's Final Symphony, and have heard the symphony many times all over the world. In Japan it is often performed with 10,000 people, and the people who sing it practice for six months, and going from Japanese to German is not easy, so they tell me. I'm also still looking for interesting stories involving the 9th, from any part of the globe.

Thanks for any observations and comments.

kerry candaele

venice, ca

kcandaele@gmail.com

The generic line is, "you have to learn the rules before you can break 'em."

Eearghh, every time I see/hear that it makes me want to punch babies.

In essence, what QCC said is right. And then, there's the confusion between learning exercises for a particular style and actual composition. In actual composition, you can do whatever you want. In an exercise, you're supposed to do what the exercise tells you to do. Pretty simple really.

I wouldn't mix both things, since one is educational and the other is the actual art itself.

It was probably a mixture of my misunderstanding, and the fact that my lecturer was not all that flash hot.

Anyways, thank you all :)

Lex

Think about it.

In an exercise where you have to do alot of this in a short period of time why bother crossing voices. Just logically. It will cause you more problems in the future because you are rushing usually. Thats why exercises generally go the easiest way out and we learn to facilitate the easiest way out. :)

It kind of sucks, but whatever.