Rhythmic reference point in syncopation, is it a good idea?

So I am writing a Scherzo in the key of Eb major for a string quartet and already at the first theme that is in canon, I use syncopation to add humor to the music as the name Scherzo implies(Scherzo translates to joke). But, I so far have kept the rhythmic reference point where I use this syncopation. In principle, this rhythmic reference point does 3 things:

1. It makes it easier for the performer to know when to play the syncopated notes relative to the beat(This becomes especially important when tuplets get involved)
2. It keeps the syncopated sound, whereas if all the instruments are syncopated, it might just sound like the beat has moved but is otherwise the same
3. It adds momentum to the syncopation by anticipating the next note, so it is almost as though you have an even beat, just spread out across the instruments instead of in a single instrument

Here is the first theme that is in a canon at the octave(only the first 2 measures are in a strict canon, the rest is just free counterpoint that harmonically fits with both the highest melodic voice and the bass line):

In measures 1 and 3, the upper 3 string instrument provide a rhythmic reference point while the cello plays the syncopation. In measures 4-6, the cello provides a rhythmic reference point while the upper 3 instruments play the syncopation, starting at different times. Similar things apply to measures 9-15. In the Musescore software, the effect I am getting with the syncopation, is that according to the time signature, the dotted quarters should be getting the metric accent, but it sounds as though the eighth notes are getting the metric accent. Off beat accent due to rhythm is basically the definition of syncopation, right? So, when the first C minor harmony of the phrase comes and to a lesser extent the second C minor harmony of the phrase, it sounds like the accent has briefly snapped back into place. Same for measures 7 and 8 that briefly tonicize Bb major with its own dominant before going back to Eb major.

But what I'm wondering is if it is always a good idea to provide this rhythmic reference point somewhere in a syncopated passage. I mean, if all the instruments are playing the syncopated rhythm, it would sound more like a time signature change than syncopation, right? Here is a basic example of what I mean by syncopation sounding like a time signature change:

Maybe I'm just not understanding your question correctly. In Mendelssohn's overture to Midsummer Night's Dream, rehearsal C, all the orchestra plays a dotted rhythm. Definitely does not sound like a time change.

A lesson on syncopation by Bach

I don't think dotted rhythms equal syncopation. I'm not quite sure of the question either. A 'rhythmic reference point' can be good. It can also not be good. Try it both ways in the context of the piece.

One thing though: in the little image you gave us, the double stop in the viola is impossible. Both notes are only on the C string and cannot be executed at the same time.

13 hours ago, aMusicComposer said:

I don't think dotted rhythms equal syncopation. I'm not quite sure of the question either. A 'rhythmic reference point' can be good. It can also not be good. Try it both ways in the context of the piece.

Well, I mean the dotted rhythm occurring in multiple instruments at the same time gives an off beat accent to the notes right, where the eighth note, because of the dotted rhythm, becomes the accented note? And off the beat accent due to rhythm is what syncopation is, isn't it?

13 hours ago, aMusicComposer said:

One thing though: in the little image you gave us, the double stop in the viola is impossible. Both notes are only on the C string and cannot be executed at the same time.

That happens to me all the time in string quartet writing, be it an arrangement or an original work, that I get an impossible double stop. And the viola is the most common instrument for which this happens to for me. In the ending 2 bars of the antecedent phrase(bars 7 and 8), I was aiming for this harmonic motion:

V -> V/V -> V

And, because I wanted it to sound inconclusive instead of like it is modulating to Bb major, I made the melody in Violin I go up while the bass alternated. And because the entire theme is contrapuntal in nature, it would make sense for the second violin and viola to have different melodic contours from both the first violin and the cello as the harmony moves. But, with a root position Bb major chord starting it, I couldn't really do that. So I settled on this:

• Violin I: Bb -> C -> D
• Violin II: F -> Eb -> F
• Viola: D -> C and Eb -> D
• Cello: Bb -> A natural -> Bb

Here, the viola provides a simultaneous upper and lower contour. And I decided to have the viola in its lowest register for this chord for 2 reasons:

1. In the canon and free counterpoint following it, the viola is in its low register from the start
2. Having the viola in the low register makes it team up well with the cello for the chords and not overwhelm the 2 violins. In other words, it matches up well with the harmonic series(which be it for string quartet or a whole orchestra, you generally want to stick close to the harmonic series for chords)

I might not have an F in my V/V chord, but the way the chord is spaced out and there having been an F in the previous V chord implies that the F is there. In fact, I can sort of hear an F in my V/V chord, even though that supposed F isn't written down. More specifically, the F I'm hearing in that V/V chord is this F:

The F a minor third above the D in the viola or an octave below the F in Violin II. It isn't written down anywhere in the chord, but I'm still hearing it. I'm still hearing a V -> I motion in Bb instead of a vii° -> I motion. I guess this has to do with how the string instruments resonate, bringing the F overtone out from the background and into the chord. The Eb in question is too low for me to just put it into the second violin, as is the F that is being brought into the chord via resonance(the violin's lowest note is G3 and I don't even know if the violin can do subharmonics(notes lower than the supposed lowest note of it's range)). I guess I'm just going to have to get rid of one of the viola notes, since moving one of the notes of the double stop will do no good for me here.

You could remove that Eb altogether. The chord would probably sound even better because of a better spread of notes.

9 hours ago, caters said:

Well, I mean the dotted rhythm occurring in multiple instruments at the same time gives an off beat accent to the notes right, where the eighth note, because of the dotted rhythm, becomes the accented note? And off the beat accent due to rhythm is what syncopation is, isn't it?

Indeed this is what syncopation is. But only is the quaver becomes accented. If the quaver isn't accented then dotted rhythm ≠ syncopation.

11 minutes ago, aMusicComposer said:

You could remove that Eb altogether. The chord would probably sound even better because of a better spread of notes.

I assume you mean the one in the viola that is making the double stop impossible? That would leave me with this:

• Violin I: Bb -> C -> D
• Violin II: F -> Eb -> F
• Viola: D -> C -> D
• Cello: Bb -> A natural -> Bb

which would probably still resonate to the point that I hear that F3, even without it being written down and thus still sound like V/V instead of vii°.

13 minutes ago, aMusicComposer said:

Indeed this is what syncopation is. But only is the quaver becomes accented. If the quaver isn't accented then dotted rhythm ≠ syncopation.

Wait? Are you saying that the eighth note isn't becoming accented in the dotted rhythm? So then if I wanted it to be syncopated and not just a dotted rhythm, you're saying that I would have to add dynamic accents to the eighth notes?

Really, none of this is syncopated -and the dotted rhythm doesnt necessarily give a sense of syncopation.

While the opening bars do have a contrapuntal feel, you shatter that with a strong homophonic passage that doesnt quite break. You could easily work this up to make it contrapuntal and that would help you create syncopated passages.

As for the Eb, why is the viola playing so low anyway? Being so close to the cello doesnt quite make sense. 

It's not syncopation because the strongest pulses are still in their place. The first beat in each bar has the strongest rhythmic accent. What the quavers are doing here is leading to the next strong beat. If you want it to sound syncopated, tying the notes over the barline would help.

If you really want the chord to sound diminished, you can always add an F#. The sacrifice of the key signature will be relieved by the context of the chord.

9 hours ago, jawoodruff said:

Really, none of this is syncopated -and the dotted rhythm doesnt necessarily give a sense of syncopation.

While the opening bars do have a contrapuntal feel, you shatter that with a strong homophonic passage that doesnt quite break. You could easily work this up to make it contrapuntal and that would help you create syncopated passages.

As for the Eb, why is the viola playing so low anyway? Being so close to the cello doesnt quite make sense. 

 

The tone of the the viola in its low register goes better with the cello, especially during the chords. And in choral works, I hear what amounts to homophonic counterpoint quite often(In other words, rhythm is kept the same but the melodic contours are still different for each voice, keeping the counterpoint intact. The string quartet is basically the closest you get in instruments to SATB. Also, during the chords, I don't think it would make that much sense to have the viola closer to the violins, especially after there being a canon at the octave of the first 2 bars, which forces the viola into its lowest register. If I were to raise the starting pitches of the canon up an octave, I would be getting into the soloistic range of Violin I and the viola would be well into the violin range. Definitely not ideal. Better to have the viola in its lowest octave than to have it an octave higher, pushing Violin I into the third octave for no good reason.

Also, the interval distance between the Viola and Cello during the chords of the antecedent phrase is a 10th, i.e. an octave + a third. That is actually quite spread out, matching up well with the harmonic series. You want more proof that the chords as written match up well with the harmonic series? Here are the interval distances:

• Cello-Viola: 10th -> 10th -> 10th
• Viola-Violin II: 10th -> 10th -> 10th
• Violin II-Violin I: 4th -> 6th -> 6th

So the entirety of the chords is spread out across 2 octaves + a third. Taking what would amount to a 1 octave chord on the piano and spreading it out more than twice the distance makes it sound as good in a string quartet as a closed position 1 octave chord does on the piano.

9 hours ago, aMusicComposer said:

It's not syncopation because the strongest pulses are still in their place. The first beat in each bar has the strongest rhythmic accent. What the quavers are doing here is leading to the next strong beat. If you want it to sound syncopated, tying the notes over the barline would help.

If you really want the chord to sound diminished, you can always add an F#. The sacrifice of the key signature will be relieved by the context of the chord.

 

I wasn't wanting the chord to sound diminished, I was just a bit surprised at first that without the root of the V/V actually written down that it still sounded like a V/V and not a vii°/V. That is, until I listened to the passage again and I could hear that root note of F in the chord from resonance. I have heard resonance bring a note an octave up before(Musescore did this with my Beethoven's Fifth arrangement, where the second time through the exposition, the already high Bb in the violins at the beginning of the closing theme sounded an octave higher than notated, not because of an 8va mark, but due to resonance), but until I started writing this Scherzo, I have never heard resonance bring an overtone out from the background so much that it is almost as though I wrote that note down, especially not with the chord's root not being notated at all but still hearing that root.

that's what most performers do when playing syncopated passages, or at least that's why I do, I imagine a reference in my mind by dividing the note in the  smallest values that i can count, that makes playing a lot easier.

Talking about your composition, doesn't feels syncopated because the reference is playing notes in the strong beats so, even if one voice is syncopated, it doesn't feel like it, because of the reference.

Also in a 2/4 the strongest beat is the first, and you are playing them all.

At measure 7, the viola and cello are a third apart (fifth if you include the Eb). That same measure you have the viola and 2nd violin playing a 10th apart. That is upper and lower with nothing in the middle. This is the passage I'm referring to. You get to this passage with parallel motion in measure 6th. It would make more sense to have the viola move contrary to the rest of the group from f up to the eb instead of down. It's important also to remember that you want space in the bass. Thirds work best when the instruments have different timbres and sonorities (bassoon and cello, for instance). Strings, on the other hand, have a tendency to amplify when spaced close together in the lower registers. Beethoven, for instance, used this to great effect in his string quartets (Grosse Fugue). That said, you dont have to move the violins up an octave, just reconsider the viola part. It's the tenor of the group... would you really have the tenor stuck in the baritone range?

1 hour ago, jawoodruff said:

At measure 7, the viola and cello are a third apart (fifth if you include the Eb). That same measure you have the viola and 2nd violin playing a 10th apart. That is upper and lower with nothing in the middle. This is the passage I'm referring to. You get to this passage with parallel motion in measure 6th. It would make more sense to have the viola move contrary to the rest of the group from f up to the eb instead of down. It's important also to remember that you want space in the bass. Thirds work best when the instruments have different timbres and sonorities (bassoon and cello, for instance). Strings, on the other hand, have a tendency to amplify when spaced close together in the lower registers. Beethoven, for instance, used this to great effect in his string quartets (Grosse Fugue). That said, you dont have to move the violins up an octave, just reconsider the viola part. It's the tenor of the group... would you really have the tenor stuck in the baritone range?

 

So, you're saying that instead of having the F go down to Eb and then further down to D for the chords, that I should have the F go to the Eb an octave higher than I have written and then have that same chord motion in the viola an octave higher than it is written here? 

Hmm maybe I should. It would give a more contrapuntal feel to it. But wait, in Violin II, I have 2 sixteenths going down, an Ab followed by a G. 

Okay, so if I am going to leap from that F and keep that homophonic counterpoint going with the dotted rhythm, it should be to a note consonant with G(the Ab is just a passing tone within a vii halfdim7/V harmony). Then again, I could stop the dotted rhythm in the viola and do an ascending scalar motion like this:

Bar 6: F, G, Ab, Bb, C, Eb, Bar 7: D, C Bar 8: D

That ascending scalar figure would I think go well with the descending scale I have going on in Violin I, especially if the C to Eb motion is on beat 2 and the F to Bb motion is on beat 1.

Now that's thinking like a composer. Make the line interesting, while at the same time, adhering to whatever traditional aesthetic you are following. I'd be happy teaching you basic counterpoint, if you're interested. It's an area I enjoy deeply!

EDIT: I'd probably go further than basic counterpoint. Ok, I would go a lot further. 

40 minutes ago, jawoodruff said:

Now that's thinking like a composer. Make the line interesting, while at the same time, adhering to whatever traditional aesthetic you are following. I'd be happy teaching you basic counterpoint, if you're interested. It's an area I enjoy deeply!

 

I have been interested in counterpoint, especially fugues, the whole 2 years I have been composing. I have been trying to study it from multiple angles(videos, ebooks, Bach analyses) but I still find even a basic 2 voice canon to be hard to write without errors. Maybe your approach to counterpoint will make things easier and not make me feel overwhelmed with rule after rule about melodic direction, intervals, etc.

7 hours ago, caters said:

I have been interested in counterpoint, especially fugues, the whole 2 years I have been composing. I have been trying to study it from multiple angles(videos, ebooks, Bach analyses) but I still find even a basic 2 voice canon to be hard to write without errors. Maybe your approach to counterpoint will make things easier and not make me feel overwhelmed with rule after rule about melodic direction, intervals, etc.

That's putting the cart before the horse.

Fugue is the ultimate form in classic counterpoint (I mean, baroque).

Learning counterpoint will help you in any style you want to compose, even non tonal.

Start with intervals (consonant and dissonant), with cadences (save authentic cadence for the final part), with basic linear motion (parallel, contrary etc...). Essential: non-chord tones and the types of auxiliary notes. Essential: motive manipulation techniques.

Stick to TWO voice counterpoint. Write first free imitative counterpoint. Afterwards, write simple canon (octave), learn ground canon. Expand to other, more complicated, canon: at other intervals, retrograde, inverse, crab...

When you are confident with that.... Add lines to your counterpoint.

And, in the end.... try the fugue form. First with two lines, afterwards add voices.

That's how I learnt counterpoint. You don't need to read and follow all those rules by Fux or whoever. You don't need to write dozens of exercices in first, second, etc..... species.

Counterpoint is best learnt by actually doing it and not getting too caught up in the theory behind it. Nothing beats actually writing a two part sonata for solo instrument (flute, violin) and harpsichord or actually writing invertible counterpoint for a four-part fugue. I offer counterpoint lessons over at NewBaroque; you might like to check it out.

Please PM me if you'd like Baroque-style counterpoint lessons.

- Anthony