Anybody use the Goodchord Voice Leading Books?

[Liarspoker]

Marco Giussani wrote a nice little chorale using the C major spread triads on page 1 of volume 1 of the Goodrick Almanacs. Can you spot the modulations?

[Christian Miller]

I did a very basic intro to VL cycles and the almanacs, with a bit of promo for the Modern Guitar Harmony site

[Tal_175]

There is something very remarkable about chord voices and voice leading.
Only one note changes when, for example, moving between these chords:
Cmaj7 -> Emin7
Or
Cmaj7 -> Amin7

But that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is how many different ways one can conceptualize this harmonic activity.

1- Functional chord substitutions.
2- Voice leading by 3rds (or 6th's if you consider the second example) with common-tone principle.
3- Moving between enharmonic chords. Emin7 and Cmaj9 are enharmonic chords. Bret Willmott has a series of books exploring voice leading and chord voices this way.
4- Chord extensions. If you maintain the Cmaj centric view, than the changing notes become extensions. A radically different way of building fretboard references than the item above.
5- Borrowing from related diminish chords. This particularly applies to Cmaj7-Emin7(Cmaj9) relationship. A chord voicing and voice leading technique Barry Harris advocated.

When you hold a chord voicing and look at the surrounding notes of each voice, then move one or move voices to their neighbouring notes, you might conceptualize what you are doing as one of the 5 above. That informs how you organize the fretboard and harmony for that matter.

[Tal_175]

This thesis summarizes the concepts covered in the three volumes of George Van Eps's classic. A common criticism of the books is that the bulk of the content is written out fingerings of every concept in all keys which makes the actual harmonic concepts less transparent to the student. The thesis attempts to remedy that:
https://arrow.tudublin.ie/cgi/viewco...xt=aaconmusthe

[Tal_175]

These are the harmonic concepts that the author of the thesis extracted from the three volumes of Harmonic Mechanisms:

1) Reductions
2) 10ths with Inner Line Motion
3) 6ths with Upper Line Motion
4) Chromatic Triads
5) The Super and Sub Series
6) The Chromatic Concept
7) The Stagger Concept
8) The Satellite Concept
9) The Displaced Concept
10) The Progressive Motion Concept

Each concept is described with examples.

[Jimmy blue note]

Launch Meeting - Zoom

This Sunday Oct 22. 3PM Eastern Time
Open Zoom meeting. Discussions and questions on using voice leading materials. All are welcome to be curious, contribute, ask, lurk, reassess your perspective. That's what it's about.

[marcwhy]

Old interview with Mick and Genil Castro just dropped!

[Mick Wright]

Old interview with Mick and Genil Castro just dropped!

Thank you Marc, (and Genil) - it's hard to put into words how inspiring this is.

[Christian Miller]

My introduction to quartal voice leading (using cycles) is now out!

Handout here
https://ko-fi.com/s/981d1dba9d
(and on the Modern Guitar Harmony site)

[Liarspoker]

Epiphany #1546

Just messing with spread 3 part fourths.

There are 3 inversions (obviously as they are triads) on page 21 Volume 2.

Cycle 6 page 25 uses these three inversions in order to cycle through the progression which is kinda cool.

There's also lots of contrary motion.

Now I know why I like cycle 6

[Jimmy blue note]

You're invited.
I try to have a Zoom meeting for all Almanac, Voice Leading, Harmonic expanding, Mick alums, curious and or contributing members of the public.
December 17 Sunday 3PM EST
Launch Meeting - Zoom

All are welcome, this month's is going to include a retrospective of 2023, topics to delve into in the new year and techniques of reharmonization based on combining modal interchange concepts with cycles.

Just need to click on at the appropriate time.
See you!

[Cunamara]

This thesis summarizes the concepts covered in the three volumes of George Van Eps's classic. A common criticism of the books is that the bulk of the content is written out fingerings of every concept in all keys which makes the actual harmonic concepts less transparent to the student. The thesis attempts to remedy that:
https://arrow.tudublin.ie/cgi/viewco...xt=aaconmusthe

I've spent some of the afternoon reading the first part of this and was struck to notice that he references this forum, as well as the videos by Rob MacKillop demonstrating exercises from George Van Eps's method book prior to the Harmonic Mechanisms. I've wondered if there was a connection between the Harmonic Mechanisms and the Almanacs.

[Liarspoker]

Tupacem!!

I never found a nice place for the cluster triads that I found in the Generic Modality Compression book but I think that they sound pretty good here. The middle part is sure to divide opinions ( they are not clusters rather they are lines ).
Enjoy anyway

[Liarspoker]

Here is one way in which Ben uses the cycles.

[JohnoL]

Something I've been dabbling with. I came up with this late at night when I was unable to sleep.
When I got up later and tried it I thought it sounded good. I am sure there's a name for it but I don't know what it is.

Take a closed triad C E G and raise the G up an octave and run through the cycles. It sounds better arpeggiated.

[Liarspoker]

Something I've been dabbling with. I came up with this late at night when I was unable to sleep.
When I got up later and tried it I thought it sounded good. I am sure there's a name for it but I don't know what it is.

Take a closed triad C E G and raise the G up an octave and run through the cycles. It sounds better arpeggiated.

Brilliant. Works great with the typical spread triad obviously (3rd octave higher) and the root in the melody too.

If you play 'chord melody' you must have this under your fingers for sure.

[Liarspoker]

All roads lead back to Bach!

Gavotte 1 from BMV 995 starts with cycle 4.

Am - Dm - G - C - F - Bm - E

[Christian Miller]

I’ll check that out! I tend to think (rightly or wrongly) of c4 being used as development/episodic material in Baroque music rather than a thematic statement and use it this way when improvising so it’s interesting to see it as the opening of a piece.

I notice Bach likes to interpolate cycle 4 a lot with a diatonic step before the next note. I see this a lot in the lute suites.

There’s some very nice contrapuntal elaborations in the two part inventions. I think the lute suites have fairly simple basses which makes me think he may have at least intended them for lute in some capacity.

Confusingly people in the classical improv world refer to this as a cycle of fifths progression. I guess it depends on whether you go up or down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Oh yeah. I’ve played that one! Of course.

On a side note I find the lute suites work well on electric with hybrid picking. I’ve bashed through them a fair bit that way. Not to a performance or recordable level… but maybe I should


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

I have a question to you mediaeval counterpoint people.

When I use voice motion I'm still rooted in the 20. century harmony. For example the notion of chord function is still there. If I'm on a II chord (a concept that's already relatively modern), I'm aware of where the voices can move other than the chord tones. I have the 9th, 11th, 6th. If I play chromatically, #I diminished or bIII diminished become useful. I'm aware of the chord I'm going to which may inform what I do on the 4th beat etc. Even if I go outside of these notes, I hear their effect in terms of modern harmony. So my aural references are the harmonic devices of functional harmony and chord-scales.

When you play contrapuntal ideas do you completely abandon the references of modern harmony and try to put yourself in the authentic mindset of the original music. Do you think about rules instead of harmony even when you are applying them to modern tunes?

[James W]

I have a question to you mediaeval counterpoint people.

When I use voice motion I'm still rooted in the 20. century harmony. For example the notion of chord function is still there. If I'm on a II chord (a concept that's already relatively modern), I'm aware of where the voices can move other than the chord tones. I have the 9th, 11th, 6th. If I play chromatically, #I diminished or bIII diminished become useful. I'm aware of the chord I'm going to which may inform what I do on the 4th beat etc. Even if I go outside of these notes, I hear their effect in terms of modern harmony. So my aural references are the harmonic devices of functional harmony and chord-scales.

When you play contrapuntal ideas do you completely abandon the references of modern harmony and try to put yourself in the authentic mindset of the original music. Do you think about rules instead of harmony even when you are applying them to modern tunes?

If the music you're playing can still be thought of in terms of functional harmony and chord-scales, then that's fine. But since you mention mediaeval music, it wasn't for the most part based on tertian harmony, so... But there is plenty of contrapuntal modern music so I'm not sure why you'd have to abandon references to modern harmony? Also not sure what you mean about thinking about rules instead of harmony...

[Tal_175]

If the music you're playing can still be thought of in terms of functional harmony and chord-scales, then that's fine. But since you mention mediaeval music, it wasn't for the most part based on tertian harmony, so... But there is plenty of contrapuntal modern music so I'm not sure why you'd have to abandon references to modern harmony? Also not sure what you mean about thinking about rules instead of harmony...

I guess I have to clarify the framing of a couple of things.

I'm not asking about what is "fine" to do. Every approach is fine as long as the person who does it enjoys it. If a musician likes to apply the stylistic elements and approaches of mediaeval music to modern tunes, that's fine.

I'm not assuming that people who are into period correct approaches to counterpoint of older music are only playing mediaeval music. For some, these approaches may also inform how they approach modern music. Also "mediaeval" is not necessarily the accurate term here, I'm using it in a bit of a tongue-in-cheek way.

Rules refer to the rules of counterpoint. These rules don't have to be specifically species counterpoint. By rules I mean any set of principles that inform how voices move in a given style. There is a saying "Harmony is a fairy-tale told about counterpoint.". I am under the impression that some people prefer abandoning the vertical/chordal harmony as a framework and create multivoice music using the guidelines of counterpoint as it was conceived prior to modern harmony. Even when what emerges can be also interpreted as harmony, their thought process is not informed by the more modern terms of harmony.

In fact, it seems like some use the term "harmony" synonymously with the vertical/chordal framework (as implied by the saying above).

[Christian Miller]

If the music you're playing can still be thought of in terms of functional harmony and chord-scales, then that's fine. But since you mention mediaeval music, it wasn't for the most part based on tertian harmony, so... But there is plenty of contrapuntal modern music so I'm not sure why you'd have to abandon references to modern harmony? Also not sure what you mean about thinking about rules instead of harmony...

I did once try writing a pastiche of an Art Nova Motet on a Isorhtyhmic tenor of My Romance. I was quite pleased with it... I'll see if I can track it down ...

[Christian Miller]

I guess I have to clarify the framing of a couple of things.

I'm not asking about what is "fine" to do. Every approach is fine as long as the person who does it enjoys it. If a musician likes to apply the stylistic elements and approaches of mediaeval music to modern tunes, that's fine.

I'm not assuming that people who are into period correct approaches to counterpoint of older music are only playing mediaeval music. For some, these approaches may also inform how they approach modern music. Also "mediaeval" is not necessarily the accurate term here, I'm using it in a bit of a tongue-in-cheek way.

As you say, you are being tongue in cheek but FWIW I would use the term 'early modern' which is basically 1500-1700. It's a pretty good fit for the period. But counterpoint informs compositional technique right through the C19, c20 and up to the present day. (Not that you care haha)

People who studied counterpoint formally include Kenny Wheeler, Quincy Jones, Donald Byrd, Stravinsky (who went as far to say he liked counterpoint but found harmony a bore), Aaron Copland, Astor Piazzolla, Richard Galliano, Adam Rogers, etc etc so on so forth.

So why? What's the point?

Well, it's not easy to answer. I think many would answer technique. For myself I think its perceptual. Modern harmonic theory is very hung up on stuff like naming chords and root movement. Counterpoint is concerned with intervals and voice leading first and foremost. It's a different perspective.

Rules refer to the rules of counterpoint. These rules don't have to be specifically species counterpoint. By rules I mean any set of principles that inform how voices move in a given style. There is a saying "Harmony is a fairy-tale told about counterpoint.". I am under the impression that some people prefer abandoning vertical/chordal harmony as a framework and create multivoice music using the guidelines of counterpoint as it was conceived prior to modern harmony.

Please bear in mind you are quoting me quoting Robert Gjerdingen before this becomes 'a saying' haha.. I can't trace it back further. It does sound like the sort of thing people like Boulanger might have said.

I actually think counterpoint is a better way to understand modern harmony (or at least how it can be composed) than functional harmony, because functional harmony is often powerless to explain unusual or modern harmonies anyway.

Actually I feel this is where the Voice Leading Almanac vol II is pointing. 'Don't name that chord.' Wayne Shorter for instance, to me has a strong contrapuntal aspect to many of his compositions.

'Modern' in this understanding is not actually so modern. Here's something from my teaching job - this came up in a school arrangement of `the Largo of Dvorak's 9th Symphony (1893) that the kids are working on. This case up because the band leader wanted me to write out a chord chart for the guitarists.

So it kicks off with this. Sorry about the key (original down a semitone).


In chord symbols
F B/D# | F D | Bb Gm Gm6 | D

Cool huh? Late romantic harmony of this kind can be characterised as highly chromatic counterpoint. It's hard to analyse a lot of this stuff using Riemannian functions etc. The ur-example is Wagners Tristan chord.

You could tie yourself in knots trying to understand this functionally or could simply note the two part counterpoint in the top line and bass. (Which of course is not shown by the chord notation or Roman numerals which is a danger of viewing music primarily in these terms). If this was in, say, a Kurt Rosenwinkel chart we would call it "non-functional harmony." Which is kind of a theoretic shrug. The implication being that functional analysis has a very limited purview anyway.

And then of course there's serial music, whose procedures mirror fugal counterpoint. Which is no accident.

Even when what emerges can be also interpreted as harmony, their thought process is not informed by the more modern terms of harmony.

All you have to do is relax or alter the 'rules'. 20th century music is full of examples.

[James W]

I guess I have to clarify the framing of a couple of things.

I'm not asking about what is "fine" to do. Every approach is fine as long as the person who does it enjoys it. If a musician likes to apply the stylistic elements and approaches of mediaeval music to modern tunes, that's fine.

I'm not assuming that people who are into period correct approaches to counterpoint of older music are only playing mediaeval music. For some, these approaches may also inform how they approach modern music. Also "mediaeval" is not necessarily the accurate term here, I'm using it in a bit of a tongue-in-cheek way.

Rules refer to the rules of counterpoint. These rules don't have to be specifically species counterpoint. By rules I mean any set of principles that inform how voices move in a given style. There is a saying "Harmony is a fairy-tale told about counterpoint.". I am under the impression that some people prefer abandoning the vertical/chordal harmony as a framework and create multivoice music using the guidelines of counterpoint as it was conceived prior to modern harmony. Even when what emerges can be also interpreted as harmony, their thought process is not informed by the more modern terms of harmony.

In fact, it seems like some use the term "harmony" synonymously with the vertical/chordal framework (as implied by the saying above).

It sounds to me that you sort of want to write pastiche contrapuntal music - because if you do follow the guidelines of counterpoint conceived of as prior to modern harmony, that's what you'll get. However, you do mention that some people are informed by older music in how they approach modern music, so you should check out Bartok's Music For Strings, Percussion and Celesta, Webern who wrote his doctoral thesis on Renaissance polyphony and many of whose works feature contrapuntal textures, mirror canons and the like. And also some Stravinsky, e.g. the central movement of his Symphony of Psalms. There are loads more examples in modern music, definitely...