The Myth Of Four-Part Harmony

Here's what I've discovered:

Most writing on Orchestration, Counterpoint, Harmony, etc. is basically a lie.

Or, at least, they're misleading.

I've have always been a proponent of studying the actual music itself, rather than reading about it.

I'm sure in writing about music (as I've done it myself) one must out of necessity simplfy and omit things for pedagogical purposes.

However, I just glanced at the Rimsky-Korsakov thing at Northern Sounds, and I remember my Adler, and I know Harmony texts well, etc. etc.

So I decided to go to the source instead of relying on what I've been taught, and what I've read, which essentially is regurgitating the same mis-information (well intended though the authors may be).

I've looked at a number of Haydn Symphonies (and Quartets) and gleaned a few "truths" from his early symphonies.

Note, I've not studied these in depth or exhaustively but these are just some general observations, and of course this only represents one small segment of one small genre:

In Haydn's early Symphonies, the strings are the "core" of the ensemble (as many orchestration texts get right) with the Oboes providing added color and weght to melodies, and sometimes adding rhythmic punctuation (in tandem with the horns).

If a Basson is included, it merely doubles the Cello, as do the Basses - no separate part is written (and in the early symphonies, if there is a separate staff for Bassoon, it's just the same notes as Cello).

Horn plays the role of sustaining harmonies, or rhythmic punctiautions, and of course idiomatic fanfares.

The Oboes, when not playing a supportive role (sustained notes or punctuation) generally double the melody, a2, or Oboe 1 playes the same as the 1st Violins, and Oboe 2 plays with the 2nds.

Is there any 4 Part Harmony?

No. Not really. There is no "Chorale Style" writing (4 part fugues are also not something that's happening at this point in the development of the Symphony, and would be considered a "specialty" element IMHO).

There are occiasionally 4 note chords, but the vast majority of these appear as "hits" - usually a V7-I cadence, or something like that.

More often, we see the following:

"One Part" writing - Tutti in Octaves, or smaller combinations of instruments in Octaves or Unisons.

Almost always, the Viola doubles the Cello, and Octave higher, and the Violins play in unison, with those 2 parts an octave apart. If the winds are included in such passages, they play in the ranges they can (as horns were natural horns, they may not play all notes for example).

"Two Part" writing. Usually 2 part counterpoint, or a Melody with a one note accompaniment, such as just bass notes on the downbeat, or a "drone" bass - long notes or pulsations on the same pitch.

Almost always, Violins (1 and 2) take the melody, and Celli and Violas take the "bass line", in octaves.

Here's an interesting tidbit: The Viola FREQUENTLY doubles the Cello an 8ve higher. This means, CONTRARY TO EVERY ORCHESTRATION BOOK YOU EVER READ, the Viola is ABOVE the 2nd Violin (and sometimes even the 1sts!) while playing a "bass line".

One often learns there are "acceptable" situations where the Tenor (or Bass in this case) part may go above the Alto (or Soprano here!) for *musical* reasons.

Haydn does it as a matter of course though. It's clear that he pretty much doesn't care.

Now, since it's not a real part - the Viola acting as a "reinforcement" of the overtone of the Celli, maybe it was considered acceptable in that the Viola was sort of "subsumed" into the Cello part.

Yet I've never seen any text (or anything) address this, ever.

And it's common enough in the works I've scanned through (including works of other composers) that it's not just a "peculiarity" of these early symphonies, or an "unskilled" Haydn.

Rarely, there might be 2 part writing between the 1st and 2nd violins, the 1st violins and Cello alone, or even rarer, the Violas and 2nd violin or something like that. But for the most part, it's the upper pair agains the lower pair, or the upper "main" (1sts) agains the lower "main" (Celli).

"3 part" writing abounds. In combination with 2 part writing and tutti, really this makes up the core of the types of writing in these works, with 4 part writing being extremely rare by comparision.

Most often, in 3 part textures, the 1st violins will have the melody, the 2nds the inner voice (alto) and the Celli and Violas the bass part. Again, the Violas double the Celli an 8ve up, meaning they often cross above the 2nd violins.

The violins frequently play passages in 3rds and 6ths if not two independent parts.

Less commonly, the Violins will play in unison with the Viola taking the inner part, and of course the Cello still being the bass. The Viola may then play in 3rds/6ths with the Cello, or 3rds/6th with the Violins.

Only on specific occasions do we get textures where the 1sts have the melody, the 2nds the inner part, and the Viola takes the bass line - in those textures the Cello may still participate by punctuating the downbeat or harmonic changes with a single note (usually just duplicating the first note of Viola part as a bass).

Rarely will the "bottom 3" (Vn2, Va, Vc) do 3 part harmony while the 1sts rest, or just punctuate.

The only time there is anything approaching "4 part" style is when the horns participate in the texture and due to their being natural horns must play only the notes they can play, adding a 4th note to the texture that temporarily acts as a "real" part  - but such events are sporadic and fleeting, and inconsistent due to the logistics of the instrument.

Likewise, sometimes the violins will sustain an upper high note above the texture (either sustained, pulsating, or tremolo) that adds a 4th "real" part, but again, it acts almost more as a drone than a true player ina 4 part texture (and is not melodic at all generaly). The same is true of inner "drones" and bass "drones" as well.

I have for years said that 3 part writing is under-studied, and that most texts and instruction places undue emphasis on 4 part writing. No doubt, 4 part writing is of course important, but, by placing so much emphasis on it, it makes people think it's the *primary* method of composition.

And with that I'd have to disagree. 3 part writing may actually be far more prevalent and from cursory observation, analysis, and performance, my experience is that that is in fact the case. And 2 part writing is not at all uncommon. If fact, the study of these Haydn scores made me realize it - at least in the materials I've looked at - is a bigger player than 4 part writing at all.

In fact, while the study of these scores confirmed some of my suspicions, I was actually surprised to see:

1. No real 4 part writing of any kind.

2. Such a large emphasis on 2 part writing.

3. The Viola's very subsidiary role (no wonder they complain so much).

4. The amount of time the Violins spend playing the same material in unison (well, they are violins, but the "4 part thinking" leads one to believe they should have the "alto" part).

5. I was suprised that Haydn's early symphonies were as techinical and as musical as they were! I have always considered Haydn a superior craftsman but I expected these early works to be "more Baroque" in nature (and they are in many ways) but it turns out he pretty much had a handle on it right from the beginning! Sure they evolved over time and things expanded, but this basic "core" was already well in place by the time he wrote these.

With a few excpetions (some of Haydn's early Symphonies have Concertino elements and more virtuosic wind writing) this is basically the inception of the Symphony as we know it.

I wish it were taught/explained that way.

(Gauldin's books are about the best I've seen for realistic methodology out of all the "main" kind of academic texts).

I think you have confused a few terms here. As well, I feel you are missing a few key concepts and historical facts that would help fill in the blanks. Probably the biggest things that seem to permeate through this thread is the idea of 4-part harmonic writing and how it applies to actual music. That 4-part harmonic writing is more or less just an exercise one does in a theory class. Actual music is orchestrated from those basic skeletons more or less and parts are distributed and finessed. Naturally there are more than 4 instruments in an orchestra so doubling will occur, however you assessment of how things are doubled seems a little short sighted. Violas don't simply or even that frequently in the grand scope of music just double the basses and play above the violins. A lot of your conclusion are made on a time period which is more or less transitional for the symphony and the orchestra itself. These traits are almost immediately gone with Mozart, Beethoven and more so with the romantic composers. 

Yeah, Plutokat described it perfectly. It seems like you're confusing 4-part harmony writing with the art of orchestration. Lets be honest: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and their contemporaries mostly sucked at orchestration....That is why most (if not all) orchestration texts exclude pre-romantic era works. 

Yeah, Plutokat described it perfectly. It seems like you're confusing 4-part harmony writing with the art of orchestration. Lets be honest: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and their contemporaries mostly sucked at orchestration....That is why most (if not all) orchestration texts exclude pre-romantic era works. 

Wow, really? You think that? You think that they sucked at orchestration? I think many would disagree. Chopin - now he sucked at orchestration!

I think most Orchestration texts were written first, at a time when it was first being realized one could make money from writing texts on the subject, and second, that the subject had evolved to a level where texts could be inclusive.

That latter is to say that if one were to write a text on Orchestration, and want to discuss, let's say, Saxophone, then of course one must look to Romantic (and late Romantic at that, practially 20th century) scores. Likewise, hard to discuss Wagner Tubas, or the entire Oboe family, and so on.

Availability of scores was also probably not what it is today, which is why R-K and the like quoted a lot from their own scores.

But maybe I did choose a bad word in "Orchestration" - which I consider not only to include giant orchestras, but even string orchestras and chamber ensembles.

My point was, most texts, and instruction, be it in counterpoint, orchestration, harmony, etc. tend to place emphasis - and I'd argue undue emphasis - on 4 part writing, when it makes up only a small  percentage of what's out there. And while I know there are many who can't escape the behemoth that Romanticism became, I think it's worth looking to various time periods and genres to see how coposers dealt with treating melody and countermelody, and acommpaniment, etc. with various instrumental ensembles.

 A lot of your conclusion are made on a time period which is more or less transitional for the symphony and the orchestra itself. These traits are almost immediately gone with Mozart, Beethoven and more so with the romantic composers. 

This is likely true, and I made that disclaimer.

I suppose part of what I was trying to point out though is that these works sound as "symphonic" as later works, and it's fascinating that these things we usually hear - which are largely based on post-Romantic ideologies, are not in force here. Granted, a Richard Strauss orchestra has a lot more resources than an early Haydn or Mozart orchestra, yet ultimately orchestration is about how the solos, two, three, four, and even five part writing are distributed.

I"m also trying to draw a parallel here - which I didn't really point out - that despite there being 4 instruments in the core ensemble, or even 7 or 8, there may still only be 2 or 3 real parts, rather than the more-discussed four (and tuttis of course, which are pretty obvious).

A huge orchestra with 13+ instruments (types) may as likely not use 4 part writing just because there are more instruments available. With that many insturments though, it's unlikely there would be 2 part writing that had 5 or 6 instruments doubling each part! It would still likely be divided up between a pair of instruments (Bassoon and Violins, or Celli and Oboes, etc.) though I'm sure there are all kinds of examples.

IOW, 4 part writing seems to be the "go to" with larger ensembles, or heck, ensemsbles of at least 4 instruments. But based on my admittedly early, transitional, and small sample, it seems evident that a craftsman like Haydn would not only utilize the instruments at his disposal, but would use quite a number of varied textures one might not ordinarily expect, based on the kind of "indoctrination" of 4 part writing we tend to get when we study.

And yes, I agree it's an exercise, just like species counterpoint, that only has a "structural" relation to actual music.

Still again, it seems like many seem to forget to mention that.

This is likely true, and I made that disclaimer.

 

I suppose part of what I was trying to point out though is that these works sound as "symphonic" as later works, and it's fascinating that these things we usually hear - which are largely based on post-Romantic ideologies, are not in force here. Granted, a Richard Strauss orchestra has a lot more resources than an early Haydn or Mozart orchestra, yet ultimately orchestration is about how the solos, two, three, four, and even five part writing are distributed.

 

I"m also trying to draw a parallel here - which I didn't really point out - that despite there being 4 instruments in the core ensemble, or even 7 or 8, there may still only be 2 or 3 real parts, rather than the more-discussed four (and tuttis of course, which are pretty obvious).

 

A huge orchestra with 13+ instruments (types) may as likely not use 4 part writing just because there are more instruments available. With that many insturments though, it's unlikely there would be 2 part writing that had 5 or 6 instruments doubling each part! It would still likely be divided up between a pair of instruments (Bassoon and Violins, or Celli and Oboes, etc.) though I'm sure there are all kinds of examples.

 

IOW, 4 part writing seems to be the "go to" with larger ensembles, or heck, ensemsbles of at least 4 instruments. But based on my admittedly early, transitional, and small sample, it seems evident that a craftsman like Haydn would not only utilize the instruments at his disposal, but would use quite a number of varied textures one might not ordinarily expect, based on the kind of "indoctrination" of 4 part writing we tend to get when we study.

 

And yes, I agree it's an exercise, just like species counterpoint, that only has a "structural" relation to actual music.

 

Still again, it seems like many seem to forget to mention that.

I will admit, undergraduate music theory is missing a lot of chunks that would make it all make sense. Im about to complete my doctorate in music and Im still filling in those chunks from my undergraduate theory. 

You could reduce probably 90% of all music down to four-part harmonies because it is structural in some ways. This is even more so in the baroque period if you take into account the basso continuo played by the keyboardist who literally is creating parts from the harmonies in a somewhat four-part style. However the surface music might not reflect that. To see these four part harmonies, it takes a lot of theoretical analysis, a lot of which isn't covered in music theory classes because its a lot of take in. 

Yeah, Plutokat described it perfectly. It seems like you're confusing 4-part harmony writing with the art of orchestration. Lets be honest: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and their contemporaries mostly sucked at orchestration....That is why most (if not all) orchestration texts exclude pre-romantic era works. 

I don't know if that's fair. Some parts of the pastoral symphony make it seem like Beethoven is a pretty gifted orchestral colorist. Towards the end of his life, though, I think his scoring became somewhat removed from reality. Some parts of the 9th symphony are admittedly a bit impractical. About the viola parts, I think it's at least as common for the violas to double first violins an octave lower as it is for them to double the cellos an octave higher. Playing with 2nds actually seems to be the least common occurence, but that's just my experience from playing in orchestra.