A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Part-Writing

PART-WRITING (Free Part-Writing; The Free Style; German, Stimmführung). When the Polyphonic Schools were abandoned, in the beginning of the 17th century, in favour of the newly-invented Monodic Style, the leaders of the revolutionary movement openly professed their contempt for Counterpoint, and for every form of composition for which it served as the technical basis. Vincenzo Galilei thought it puerile; Monteverde made a pretence of studying it, under Ingegneri, but never paid the slightest attention to its rules; neither he, nor any other disciple of the Monodic School, ever suggested a better system to supply its place. But musicians like Giovanni Gabrieli, Bernadino Nanini, and Leo Hasler, could not content themselves with a stiff and ungraceful Melody, accompanied only by a still more stiff and unmelodious Continuo. Still less could their successors, Colonna, and Alessandro Scarlatti, in Italy, and the ancestors of the great Bach family in Germany, dispense with the effect producible by a number of voices or instruments, combined in accordance with a well-arranged system of harmonious concord. On the other hand, the gradual abandonment of the Ecclesiastical Modes opened the way for many new forms of treatment, and rendered many older ones impossible. Yielding therefore, from time to time, to the necessities of the case, these true apostles of progress gradually built up a new system, which, while relinquishing no part of the old one which it was possible or expedient to retain, added to it all that was needed for the development of a growing School, marked by peculiarities altogether unknown to the earlier Polyphonists.

In order to understand the changes introduced into the new system of Part-writing, by the pioneers of the modern Schools, we must first briefly consider the changed conditions which led to their adoption.

The daily increasing attention bestowed upon Instrumental Music played an important part in the revolutionary movement. When voices were supported by no accompaniment whatever, it was necessary that they should be entrusted with the intonation of those intervals only which they were certain of singing correctly in tune; and on this point the laws of Counterpoint were very precise. When instrumental support was introduced, it was found that many intervals, previously forbidden on account of their uncertainty, could be used with perfect security; and, in consequence of this discovery, the severity of the old laws was gradually relaxed, and a wide discretion allowed to the composer, both with regard to pure instrumental passages, and vocal passages with instrumental accompaniments.

Again, the complete abandonment of all the Ecclesiastical Modes, except the Æolian and Ionian, led to a most important structural change. In the older style, the composer was never permitted to quit the Mode in which his piece began, except for the purpose of extending its range by combining its own Authentic and Plagal forms.^[1] But, he was allowed to form a True Cadence^[2] upon a certain number of notes, called its Modulations.^[3] As it was necessary that these Cadences should all terminate upon Major Chords, they involved the use of a number of Accidentals which has led modern writers to describe the Modulations of the Mode as so many changes of Key, analogous to the Modulations of modern Music. But the Modulations of the Mode were no more than certain notes selected from its Scale, like the Dominant and Sub-Dominant of the modern Schools; and, in applying the term Modulation to a change of Key, the technical force of the expression has been entirely changed, and the word itself invested with a new and purely conventional meaning.^[4] When it became the custom to use no other Modes than the Ionian and Æolian—the Major and Minor Modes of modern Music—and to change the pitch of these Modes, when necessary, by transposition into what we now call the different Major and Minor Keys, it was found possible to change that pitch many times, in the course of a single composition—in modern language, to modulate from one Key to another. But, this form of Modulation was quite distinct from the formation of true Cadences upon the Regular and Conceded Modulations of the Mode; and it necessarily led to very important changes in the method of Part-writing.

Another striking characteristic of the new School—closely connected with that of which we have been speaking—was manifested in the construction of its Cadences. The principle of the Polyphonic Cadence was based upon the melodic relation of two real parts.^[5] The Cadence of the modern School is based upon the harmonic relation of two successive Chords.^[6] And, naturally, the two forms demand very different treatment in the arrangement of the vocal and instrumental parts.

Finally, the free introduction of the Chromatic genus, both in Melody and in Harmony, opened a wide field for innovation in the matter of Part-writing. Neither in Harmony nor in Melody was the employment of a Chromatic Interval permitted, in the Strict Counterpoint of the 16th century.^[7] The new School permitted the leap of the Augmented Second, the Diminished Fourth, and even the Diminished Seventh; and, by analogy, the leap of the Tritonus, and the False Fifth, which, though Diatonic Intervals, are strongly dissonant. The same intervals and other similar ones were also freely employed in harmonic combination; for the excellent reason that, with instrumental aid, they were perfectly practicable, and exceedingly effective.^[8]

These new conditions led, step by step, to the promulgation of an entirely new code of laws, which, taking the rules of Strict Counterpoint as their basis, added to or departed from them, whenever, and only whenever, the new conditions rendered such changes necessary or desirable.

The new laws, like those of the older code, were at first entirely empirical. Composers wrote what they found effective and beautiful, without being able to account, upon scientific principles, for the good effect produced. It was not until Rameau first called attention, in the year 1722, to the roots of chords, and the difference between fundamental and inverted harmonies,^[9] that any serious attempt was made to account for the prescribed progressions upon scientific principles, or that the essential distinction between the so-called 'vertical' and 'horizontal' methods was satisfactorily demonstrated:^[10] and, even then, the truth was only arrived at, after long and laborious investigation.^[11]

We shall best understand the points of difference between the two systems by referring to the general laws of Strict Counterpoint, as set forth in vol. iii. p. 741–744.

The 'Five Orders' of Strict Counterpoint are, theoretically, retained in Free Part-writing, though, in practice, composers very rarely write continuous passages in any other than the Fifth Order,^[12] which includes the four preceding ones, and, in the new style, admits of infinite variety of rhythm.

The four Cardinal Rules remain in force, though their stringency is slightly modified, in their relation to 'Hidden Consecutives.' In one respect, however, the severity of the law is increased. In Strict Counterpoint, there is no rule forbidding the employment of Consecutive Fifths by contrary motion;^[13] while, in the Free Style, the progression is severely censured.

In Free Part-writing of the First Order, it is not necessary to begin with a Perfect Concord. Melodic leaps, in any interval, whether diatonic or chromatic, are freely permitted. The employment of more than three Thirds or Sixths in succession is not prohibited. Dissonant harmonies, both fundamental and inverted, may be used with the freedom of consonances, provided only that they be regularly resolved. Chromatic chords may be freely introduced; and, as a natural consequence of their employment, the law which relates to the treatment of False relations—especially, that of the Octave—has undergone considerable modification, as in cases analogous to the following, which is perfectly lawful in the free style—

Among these innovations, one of the most important—perhaps the most important of all—is the natural result of the introduction, by Monteverde, of the Unprepared Discords so carefully avoided in Strict Counterpoint.^[14] Not only is the harmony now known as that of the Dominant Seventh^[15] freely permitted without any form of preparation whatever; but, the Licence is extended to the Dominant Ninth, whether Major or Minor:^[16] the Diminished^[17] and Augmented Triads; the three forms of the Augmented Sixth; the Diminished Seventh; and even to double Dissonances, sounded simultaneously. Combinations tolerated, in Strict Counterpoint, as Suspensions only, and therefore strictly confined to the Fourth Order, may be treated in Free Part-writing without preparation, and used in the First Order as Appoggiaturas. Dissonant Harmonies may be employed as freely as Fundamental Concords; and the Licence is comprehensive enough to include all possible combinations of this character, provided only that the percussion of the Discord be followed by its legitimate resolution. And so great is the change of style effected by the introduction of this salient feature, that had the progress of the movement been arrested here, it would still have sufficed to separate the Polyphonic from the Modern Schools, by an impenetrable barrier.

In the Second Order, it is not necessary that the Minim on the Thesis should always be a Concord, or that every Discord should lie between two Concords. All that is prescribed, in place of this rule, is, that the Discord, whether struck upon the Thesis or the Arsis, must be followed by its correct harmonic Resolution, upwards or downwards, either in the next note or the next note but one—or at most two.

In the Third Order these conditions are still farther relaxed. The Crotchets may proceed to Discords by leap, either on the strong or the weak parts of the measure, falling into figures dominated by Appoggiaturas or Mordents at will. Or, they may take all the notes of a given Chord, in succession, in the form of an Arpeggio, either with or without Appoggiaturas or Mordents between them, as in the following examples: all that is necessary being the ultimate Resolution of every Dissonance into a Consonant Harmony:

In the Fourth Order, it is not necessary that the Syncopation should invariably be prepared in a Concord. On the contrary, it may, in certain cases, be even struck, suspended, and resolved, in combination with two or more successive Discords, as in the following example—

In the Fifth Order, as in the Fifth Order of Strict Counterpoint, the Rules and Licences prescribed in connection with the first four Orders are combined; while much additional freedom is derived from the rhythmical involutions resulting from the intermixture of notes of different length.

The highest aim of Strict Counterpoint was, the perfect development of Unlimited and Limited Real Fugue—i.e. Imitation, with all its most complicated devices, and Canon. The highest aim of Free Part-writing is the perfect development of Tonal Fugue. And as the Real Fugue of the 16th century could only be developed, in its most complex forms, by the aid of Double, Triple, and Quadruple Counterpoint, so, for the development of the more modern Art-form, it was necessary to invent corresponding Orders of Double, Triple, and Quadruple Free Part-writing—that is to say, combinations of two, three, four, or even a greater number of parts, which could be placed in any required order, above, below, or between each other, without injury to the harmony; in the absence of which provision, the successful manipulation of a Subject with two, three, or more CounterSubjects, would have been impossible. The rules for these devices were, mutatis mutandis, very nearly analogous to those observed in Strict Counterpoint: the chief points insisted on being, that the Parts could not be permitted to cross each other—since this would have nullified the effect of the desired inversion; and, that two consecutive Fourths could not be permitted, since these, when inverted, would become consecutive Fifths.

The Polyodic School,^[18] which was gradually developed in connection with this species of Part-writing, reached its culminating point of perfection under Handel and Bach, in the earlier half of the 18th century. Both these Composers observed exactly the same laws; but the student can scarcely fail to notice the strongly-marked individuality with which they applied them. Though constantly using the most dissonant intervals, both in harmony and melody, Handel delighted in consonant points of repose; and to these his Music owes much of the massive grandeur which is generally regarded as its most prominent characteristic. Sebastian Bach delighted in keeping the ear in suspense; in constantly recurring collisions of discord with discord, which allowed the ear no repose. And this fearless determination to give the ear no rest, enabled him to interweave the Subjects of his Fugues with a freedom which has rarely, if ever, been rivalled. Both masters made free use of every resource provided by the progress of Art: but, while Bach dwelt lovingly upon the discords, Handel used them only as a means of making the concords more delightful, and thus attained a sweetness of expression which Bach never attempted to cultivate.

But, the influence of the new School of Part-writing was not confined, like that of Strict Counterpoint, to the development of one single form of Composition alone. It made itself felt in Instrumental Music of every kind; and, in no case more prominently than in the Sonata-Form of the classical period.

Passages such as those we have described, in speaking of Part-writing of the Third Order—Arpeggios, with or without Appoggiaturas or Mordents between their principal notes; Scale passages, and the like, when written in notes of very brief duration, and executed with rapidity, form an essential element in Instrumental Music. When accompanied simply, with long-drawn harmonies, they are purely Monodic—Instrumental Melodies, supported upon a harmonized Bass. But they are not always confined to a single Part; and, in that case, they form a connecting link between the Monodic and Polyodic Styles—between the 'vertical' and the 'horizontal' methods of modern criticism. In Strict Counterpoint, the 'vertical' method, characterized by the formation of long passages upon the harmony of a single Chord, was impossible. Its passages were formed by horizontally interweaving together a number of independent Melodies. In Free Part-Writing, 'vertical' and 'horizontal' passages succeed each other frequently. In Bach's Fantasia and Suite in G Major, the opening Arpeggios of the Prelude are distinctly Monodic, and vertically constructed; while the massive harmonies which succeed them are distinctly Polyodic, and constructed on the 'horizontal' method. Vertical passages, interspersed with Free Part-writing, are constantly found in Handel's finest Choruses—e.g. 'Worthy is the Lamb,' and 'The horse and his rider.' The contrast is less frequently found in the Choruses of Bach; but it may be seen sometimes—as in the 'Et vitam venturi' of the Mass in B Minor. In Beethoven's Sonatas, we meet it at every turn. To mention two instances only; the Rondo of the 'Sonate pathétique,' and the final Variations in the Sonata in E Major, op. 109, exhibit the contrast in its most strongly-marked form. In the works of Wagner, the two methods are so closely combined that it is sometimes scarcely possible to separate them. The Leading-Themes are interwoven in Free Part-writing as ductile and as fearless as that of Bach himself; while an occasional burst of sustained harmony unites the strongest characteristics of the 'vertical' and 'horizontal' methods, in a single passage.

It will be seen from what we have already said, that Free Part-writing was no new invention peculiar to the 17th and 18th centuries, but a gradual development from the Strict Counterpoint of the 16th century. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at, that it can only be successfully studied by those who have previously mastered the laws of Strict Counterpoint, in all their proverbial severity. So true is this, that before writing Exercises in the Free Style, Beethoven studied Strict Counterpoint in the Ecclesiastical Modes, first under Haydn, and then under Albrechtsberger, as his exercise-books conclusively prove. Schubert felt it so strongly that, at the moment of his death, he was actually in treaty with a well-known teacher of the time, for lessons in Counterpoint. Modern progress would have us believe that it is unnecessary for the student to master the rule, so long as he makes himself familiar with the exceptions. Time will prove whether this system is, or is not, more profitable than that which Beethoven followed, and which Schubert, after all he had already attained, was preparing to follow, when an early death put an end to his astonishing career.

[ W. S. R. ]

1. See vol. ii. p. 338–9.
2. See vol. iv. p. 592.
3. See vol. ii. 351b.
4. The Latin words Modula and Modulatio simply mean a tune.
5. See vol. iii. p. 742; also vol. iv. App. p. 592.
6. See vol. i. pp. 290 et seq.
7. One of the earliest known instances of the employment of the chromatic genus in Polyphonic Music will be found in a canzonet by Giles Farnaby, 'Construe my meaning' (1598) lately edited by Mr. W. B. Squire. The English School was always in advance of all others in innovations of this kind.
8. It is true that, at the present day, these intervals are freely employed in unaccompanied vocal passages; but, they are only safe now, because our vocalists have to long been accustomed to sing them with instrumental assistance.
9. See Sir George Macfarren's remarks upon this subject, in the Encyclopædia Britannica, art. 'Music.'
10. See vol.1, p. 672.
11. An attempt has been made to claim for Dr. Alfred Day the credit of having first clearly explained the difference between the Strict and the Free Styles; but the distinction had already been clearly demonstrated by Albrechtsberger more than half a century earlier.
12. A remarkable exception to this will be found in the opening movement of the Credo in Bach's great Mass in B minor.
13. Fux. Grad. ad Parnass. p. 266.
14. See vol. iii. p. 741.
15. See example, vol. ii. p. 358a.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. So called, in contradistinction to the Monodic School, by which it was immediately preceded.