Basic Rules of Part Writing

This video discusses the ground rules for writing four-part voice leading.

[johnbowman]

This lady wrote a lesson for her students, and ended up making a very nice resource for the whole internet.

Thanks Kati!

[Manas-cowl]

I just want to insert this for those who feel that this may seem too oppressive. This is music theory specifically designed for polyphonic part writing. It may or may not be useful for your genre such as jazz.

However, it's necessary if you want to generate rich overtones and write distinct voices that has its own melodic line without clashing or dissolving into one another. If your aim is more prolific or classical then this knowledge will very much help you.

[GHØSTED.voices]

I'm only a teenager but I really want to learn how to write music... I know I'm very late, but thank you so much for this!

[k.louismusic]

This was posted years ago, but I still reference this video when arranging.Easily the best video on part-writing I've ever watched.

[gd.]

I took music theory last year. I’m a composer trying to improve my part writing skills. This is the review refresher I needed. Thanks!

[oliviajury]

In this video, I liked that it gave me a better understanding of the balance between voices versus randomly writing notes for each voice.

[juandavila]

Thank you for a great refresher on part writing

[lawrencetaylor]

I just found your channel when I saw your first species counterpoint. I subbed immediately. Your lessons are absolutely basic and simply clear. That is hard to do.
I'm trying to learn the piano at 65 yoa (like my Mom), but have suspected that I have Aural Aphantasia. I don't have a melody in my head even after over a year of pounding the 88 keys. But I just learned the Rule of the Octave and am working on the cadence exercises of CPE Bach. I've been singing (badly) the changes on the root, third and fifth, and at least have a better understanding of how the music should move. I'm hoping that by practicing first species counterpoint, I can make progress. Who cares how long it takes.
Merci beaucoup from Switzerland.

[bohnulus]

You are awesome. Dr. Meyer. Thank you. You've explained some solid guidelines for sonic clarity.... nicely.

[TechnoRaabe]

We have way too little teachers with a Dr.
This is absolutely clear and understandable for everyone.

[balbino]

Very very very very good!
Thank you very much!

[stevencharleswhite]

I think that Dr. Meyer's content is great. I've learned a lot from it, for which I'm grateful. I'll add some thoughts here about this particular video for Dr. Meyer's consideration. These thoughts are based on some ideas/principles the following of which I believe make written/spoken content easier to consume.

This video doesn't link to other videos as prereqs; so I'll take this to be a standalone, self-contained bit of education. Many of my objections here wouldn't apply were this an in-person lesson. In that case the student can ask questions, and seek clarification. But in a video, you have one chance, and once chance only, to get the info across perfectly. And folks who watch vidoes are usually short on patience.

"[...] a model of harmony and voice-leading in more elaborate music." I think I know what you mean; but anyone who didn't already know what that sentence means, and were trying to parse it on face value, likely wouldn't know what it meant. So how about, "[...] a model of harmony and voice-leading as preparation for writing more elaborate music." I think that's more what you meant.

"[...] is a matter of voicing". I would add "(in the pop/jazz sense)" or something at the end there. The problem is that classical pianists use the term "voicing" to mean making some notes of a chord sound more prominently than others. While pop/jazz players use it in the sense you mean here. So I think that that overloading of terms needs some navigating for the comfort of the audience.

"[...] the qualities of balance and clarity." And then you imply that the audience should strive for those qualities in our own writing. But you don't explain what balance and clarity are. So a) how can we know whether or not we're achieving those things, and b) why should we feel motivated to strive for qualities that we don't understand? These things need to be defined and explained. Anyone watching this video who already knows what those terms mean very likely doesn't need to be watching the video.

Remember to end a sentence with a period.

"[...] use the middle of each voice's range." But you don't say, and the diagram doesn't show, where the middle is. Some people might think that by "middle" you mean the single note that sits right in the middle of the range. But you mean a smaller range that sits in the middle. Folks need that explained. At this point it'd be interesting to tell the audience that by "the middle", you mean the notes that can be sung comfortably. Such notes are easier to sing, but sound less interesting, than notes at the extremes of the range (which will tend to stand out from the choir). So those extreme notes can use used for emphasis or increased emotion.

"Double the root in root position for better clarity". Ok, a couple of interesting principles here. First, write in such a way that as the reader parses the sentence, they build up an always-true, but increasingly precise, mental model. Here, after "double the root", the mental model that I've formed is that I should double the root. But that's not true; that's misleading. I should double the root only under certain conditions. So, before saying "double the root", you should state those conditions (or at least some of them). If we were to write "In root position, double the root", then that's immediately an improvement. Now, after "in root position", I haven't been misled. I'm simply waiting to be told something related to, and significant about, that scenario. And I get it with the three words that follow. The second principle is to tell people why we're asking them to do something before (not after) we ask them to do it. For example, "For more info, see MyAwesomeWebPage" is slightly better than "See MyAwesomeWebPage for more info". In the former, which sounds like a gentle invitation, anyone can stop reading if they judge that they don't want "more info". In the latter, we're issuing an order right out of the gate; and that sounds slightly impolite. And then as an afterthought we add the reason why folks might want to obey our order. So here we should open with "for better clarity". So I would rewrite that sentence as "It gives better clarity, in root position, to double the root". So now I'm told the reason why I might care, up front; then the conditions to which the advice applies; and finally the advice itself. Your sentence has them in completely the wrong order. And I know why: it's because it's easier and quicker to write without thinking about these things. But it's a little more comfortable for your readers if you put this kind of care into your writing. And that's why it's polite and considerate to do so.

"Do not double any tendency tone for improved balance." This one is even worse, because it's also ambiguous. Some people will read that and think: Oh, so doubling any tendency tone gives improved balance, does it? And I shouldn't do that." It should say, "For improved balance, don't double a tendency tone." But again it doesn't define what a tendency tone is.

"The diminished chord on scale degree seven in first inversion contains the leading-tone, and should not be doubled." First, that chord contains the leading-tone no matter what inversion it's in. And second, the way you've worded it, you're saying that the chord shouldn't be doubled". That should say, "The diminished chord on scale degree seven (here it's in first inversion) contains the leading-tone, which should not be doubled." Later you say something very similar, but you correctly use the word "which" instead of "and", so it's clear you're talking about the tone and not the chord.

"The V7 has both the leading-tone and the seventh of the chord, both of which [...] should not be doubled." A lot of folks will think: but how can they be doubled; you have only four voices? So a *preqrequisite* for understanding this slide is the fact that you can omit certain chord factors. You'd have to omit something (say, the fifth) before you even have the option of making the mistake (doubling a tendency tone) that you're talking about. But we don't learn that until the following slide. So, another really vital principle in education is to teach ideas in the right order. You can learn something only if you already know it. Thatt's a strange thing to say; but it rewards thinking about it, and understanding it.

Ok, I've gotten only 3:19 into the video so far, so I'll stop here. But it should be easy to apply the principles I've mentioned everywhere else.

[edelcorrallira]

Oh my is this useful. Im trying to wrap up a guitar course, but for the final assignment I got a bit ambitious and well... Need to research how to properly arrange for a small ensemble (the muse is quite unforgiving :P)

Seriously, very helpful. I wonder though when part writing for instruments how much would the crossings themselves affect clarity? I suppose its very dependent on the instrumentation (if the tone is pleasant across the range, capable of taking over while not being in any way confused then your more likely to get away with it)...

Guess you keep things like this in mind and experiment for effect but always with the understanding that there should be a musical purpose because theres a good chance this will cause issues with and need reworking.

Still I always think of the Great Fugue and how delightful those crossings are, but then again Beethoven spent a lifetime rewriting the rule book, and could get away with making just about anything sound wonderful through his unwavering diligence and prodigious talent.

Anyway wonderful stuff

[kumareshnatarajan]

Very effective video. Thanks a lot. Thanks once again.

[bobmonutube]

Great one; clearly presented, simple and concise. thanks.

[aydaghashamshami]

Thanks alot Dr Kati. brief and helpful..nice

[JannisSicker]

thanks a lot!
would love to see maybe a video with even more in depth infos

[alexrivera.churchpianist]

''Do not double leading tones and 7ths'' I did not know that.

Explanation was very simple to understand.
Thank you for sharing.

I have a question. If i don't have the root note of the chord on the bass, do i still have to double the root of the chord? Like the last example? Dm/F

[neilwalsh]

At the same time, great composers break rules constantly. The rule is a guide in my opinion.

[trevor]

The spacing part is least clear for me. In the close position example, couldn't an E or G fit on the treble staff, fitting it between the tenor and alto? Thank you for the excellent video.