Question About Doubling The Leading Tone.

I'm trying to understand what the "do not double the leading tone" rule means in practice. Does it only mean when tones are vertically aligned on a strong beat or does it encompass more than that? I encountered a passage in a Haydn sonata (see attached picture) which is in E major. A little down the page of this presto is an arpeggiated passage which starts out with an octave doubling of the E major leading tone (D#) and a D# is also present in the arpeggiated figures in the right hand. I observe that this passage ultimately resolves on B, but the leading tone of B is never expressed, interestingly. But I wondered if since he's leading up to being in B this is why the E major leading tone is (apparently) permitted to be freely doubled. 

One must keep in mind that those part writing 'rules' are a small portion of composing. A lot of those 'rules' are broken on the surface level of the music in practice. In the example you gave you might also notice a lot of parallel octaves between the left and right hand (ignoring the obvious ones in the left hand). In part writing, if you are tonicizing a new key, the norm of doubling still apply to the new tonic. But those norms of part writing really apply to a lower level of the music, below the surface. 

So would you say my analysis was correct then? He's basically leading up to a resolution on B, from E major. Since we're moving towards B, the leading tone would be A# (leading tone of B) rather than D# (leading tone of E). So the doubling (which is not only the octave bass, but a D# on the strong beat of the passage in question in the right hand) is permitted.

*edit* Maybe it's okay when you have an arpeggiated chord and the doubling is very transient and quick?

Ever since I began studying music back in...I guess it is about the year 2000 or so, I have had trouble understanding the harmonic rules, and theory textbooks in general. I have a much better feeling for why they are there, today, especially after having owned and played a clavichord for 5 years (this instrument has really helped to reveal a lot of the "why" for me...). But I definitely perceive how subtle they are as well, they definitely can't be called rules the same way it is a rule that 1+1=2 I suppose.

Still it's interesting when things like this pop up and, having not studied much theory formally I'm interested to hear more learned individuals' thoughts on the matter...

So what you're saying I think is, that those rules apply in a black and white fashion more to lock-step, simple 4 part writing than to embellished, full idiomatic writing for an instrument? That would make sense---it'd probably be too difficult to pin down exactly where the rules are and are not being followed otherwise. Though I have memories of my piano professor in college (when I was a non major piano student) pointing out places where Chopin was following the rules, and there too you have things broken up a lot more than mere 4 part writing. So it would seem that sort of analysis can be done on any music, so...I'm still baffled by the passage I found. I wonder if there are any volumes of analysis of all Haydn's sonatas or anything I could check out, I've been playing them a lot...learning a lot, too, I hope!

The part writing rules are followed to a point in music of the common practice period, but not in the way you learn in your theory textbooks. The part-writing exercise is really meant to help one understand how harmony works and not meant to be a compositional tool or measuring stick to determine skill. Part-writing in a way is music reduced all the way down to just its harmony, or in Schenkerian terms, down to the Ursatz. Any tonal music can be reduced to this lower fundamental level, and thats where the part writing norms can be found. The music you listen to and see on the score is not the fundamental level, but instead the surface level. Here, you will see music that is idiomatic to what ever instrument its intended, and thus part writing norms are pushed to the way side in order to create the music we hear. And this is where I feel how part-writing is taught makes a miss step. 

The confusion you are having is very common with those studying music theory. Part-writing doesnt account for arpeggios or alberty bass lines, it doesnt account for when the melody is in the bass, it doesnt account for sudden texture or register shifts. Part-writing norms don't account for TONS of things one will see in actual music because its not suppose to represent surface level music. Unfortunately, many theory textbooks gloss over this fact or neglect it all together. I try to make sure my students know this to some degree when I teach part-writing, but its hard to keep the two separate. 

However, it does come together when one studies Schenkerian Analysis. I would suggest reading Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach by Allen Cadwallader and David Gagné. 

So would you say my analysis was correct then? He's basically leading up to a resolution on B, from E major. Since we're moving towards B, the leading tone would be A# (leading tone of B) rather than D# (leading tone of E). So the doubling (which is not only the octave bass, but a D# on the strong beat of the passage in question in the right hand) is permitted.

 

*edit* Maybe it's okay when you have an arpeggiated chord and the doubling is very transient and quick?

 

Ever since I began studying music back in...I guess it is about the year 2000 or so, I have had trouble understanding the harmonic rules, and theory textbooks in general. I have a much better feeling for why they are there, today, especially after having owned and played a clavichord for 5 years (this instrument has really helped to reveal a lot of the "why" for me...). But I definitely perceive how subtle they are as well, they definitely can't be called rules the same way it is a rule that 1+1=2 I suppose.

 

Still it's interesting when things like this pop up and, having not studied much theory formally I'm interested to hear more learned individuals' thoughts on the matter...

 

So what you're saying I think is, that those rules apply in a black and white fashion more to lock-step, simple 4 part writing than to embellished, full idiomatic writing for an instrument? That would make sense---it'd probably be too difficult to pin down exactly where the rules are and are not being followed otherwise. Though I have memories of my piano professor in college (when I was a non major piano student) pointing out places where Chopin was following the rules, and there too you have things broken up a lot more than mere 4 part writing. So it would seem that sort of analysis can be done on any music, so...I'm still baffled by the passage I found. I wonder if there are any volumes of analysis of all Haydn's sonatas or anything I could check out, I've been playing them a lot...learning a lot, too, I hope!

^^^what he said!

Maybe it's okay in this instance since if you look at both the left and right hand as one big chord you really have a 6/3 chord. I.e. the third is expressed in the octave bass in the left, the right hand is playing a root position chord, but sum it all up and you have a big 6/3 chord, in essence. I was experimenting with this this morning and found if I play the arpeggiated figure in the right hand voiced as a 6/3 chord also over the octave bass, that did create an unpleasant effect with the leading tone as I was doubling it four times rather than three...perhaps it is more a matter of degree.

One thing that has helped me thus far in understanding triadic harmony is realizing that the overall goal expressed by the "rules" is really to emphasize the third of the chord of the current harmony and treat it carefully. It should be clear and expressed well. Various things obscure it. Thirds disappear when you use too many parallels or if you express just an octave or fifth. They also sound "over emphasized" when doubled too much. I suppose it is sort of a balancing act rather than a black and white sort of thing. I didn't really understand these things in my ear until I got a clavichord----for some reason on the piano, nearly any voicing of any chord sounds good, dissonant or not---possibly because of the richer timbre. But with a thinner timbre, improper treatment of the third sticks out like a sore thumb! It's always been my goal to try to understand harmony with my ear primarily---that way the rules don't really seem like rules, rather they are "observations" about what sounds good, if you're starting out with the premise of "emphasizing (or rather, respecting and balancing) thirds." (after all you might start out with wanting to de-emphasize all tonality, with serialism or something. I tend to like common practice harmony so I start out with that goal of emphasizing thirds)