Alberti Bass / Arpeggiated Bass / Jump Bass Voice Leading

[m***@gmail.com]

Hello All,

I'm studying SATB harmony and I'm having some difficulties in
understanding how the voice leading rules apply to various styles of
piano music. I have several textbooks on harmony but none adequately
explain this....

For instance, with alberti bass or otherwise arpeggiated bass, it is
conceivable that there could be parallel 5ths or parallel octaves
introduced that would not be present if block chords were used instead.

As far as voice leading considerations go, should I treat the alberti
bass exactly the same as the block chords and ignore any parallels that
are caused by its use instead of block chords? Is the alberti bass
considered to be 3 voices or is it one voice hopping around by thirds?

If the alberti bass is one voice hopping around by thirds, then one
could get away with voice leadig that would not be permissable in block
chords (i.e. FCAC GBDB) I would think.

Or, is it some combination of the two (i.e. I would make sure the voice
leading is correct for if it were block chords (3 voices in the bass)
and also make sure the voice leading is correct for if it was just one
voice in the bass that jumps around.

In the case of jump bass aka "oom-pah" bass (chopin eflat major
nocturne type stuff), there are frequently 4 notes sounding at the same
time in the left hand if a pedal is used.. Would this be treated as
though it was one big 4 note chord sounding at once for an entire
measure (assuming the same harmony for an entire measure)?

Or would the bass only be considered three voices as one of the notes
in the "pah" chord that the bass jumps up to is often a duplicate of
the initial bass note at the beginning of the measure but an octave
higher, meaning an orchestration tool as opposed to a seperate voice.

What about parallel octaves or fifths caused by voice movement from
"oom" to "pah" or rather the actual jumping of the jump bass. Is this
really considered parallel motion (because if there were block chords
there would be no motion) and if so what voice does the bass note (the
"oom") match up with in the "pah" chord?

I would really appreciate any advice you can give as this is driving me
nuts... I'm trying to do piano composition exercises and I want to make
sure my voice leading is correct.. Thanks!

[Tom K.]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Hello All,
I'm studying SATB harmony and I'm having some difficulties in
understanding how the voice leading rules apply to various styles of
piano music. I have several textbooks on harmony but none adequately
explain this....
For instance, with alberti bass or otherwise arpeggiated bass, it is
conceivable that there could be parallel 5ths or parallel octaves
introduced that would not be present if block chords were used instead.

Sometimes, they should usually be avoided.

Post by m***@gmail.com
As far as voice leading considerations go, should I treat the alberti
bass exactly the same as the block chords and ignore any parallels that
are caused by its use instead of block chords? Is the alberti bass
considered to be 3 voices or is it one voice hopping around by thirds?

Three voices.

Post by m***@gmail.com
If the alberti bass is one voice hopping around by thirds, then one
could get away with voice leadig that would not be permissable in block
chords (i.e. FCAC GBDB) I would think.

See above.

Tom K.

[Steve Latham]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Hello All,
I'm studying SATB harmony and I'm having some difficulties in
understanding how the voice leading rules apply to various styles of
piano music. I have several textbooks on harmony but none adequately
explain this....
For instance, with alberti bass or otherwise arpeggiated bass, it is
conceivable that there could be parallel 5ths or parallel octaves
introduced that would not be present if block chords were used instead.

That's correct. Just as but one example, you'll find plenty of Mozart
Alberti that goes from say, I to vi, and the chords, had they been block
chords would be completely parallel (the entire chord stack).

Post by m***@gmail.com
As far as voice leading considerations go, should I treat the alberti
bass exactly the same as the block chords and ignore any parallels that
are caused by its use instead of block chords?

What? Ok, you may, in certain contexts, treat Alberti bass NOT as block
chords, and have parallels that would otherwise be objectionable if they
were block chords.


Is the alberti bass

Post by m***@gmail.com
considered to be 3 voices or is it one voice hopping around by thirds?

Ah - you've stumbled on the issue. In some circumstances, it's treated as
multiple parts, in some instances (and more especially for more non-Alberti
patterns) it's treated as a "single" line. Having said all this though, I
would expect my theory students NOT to write parallels in Alberti figures
only because if I even give them the faintest allowance for anything, they
will use it EVERYWHERE! Point being, that it would be best to look at some
actual music and see how composers, when they did move them "parallel", wht
they were doing. I can cite those Mozart I-vi examples, and I know of an
example where a German +6 moves from and to V and he just makes the 5th part
of the chord move in "parallel", off the top of my head. I'm sure there are
plenty though. However, moving I-V like this would be less common, you'd
more likely get:
G F D F G F D F C G E G C G E G, etc.

Post by m***@gmail.com
If the alberti bass is one voice hopping around by thirds, then one
could get away with voice leadig that would not be permissable in block
chords (i.e. FCAC GBDB) I would think.

Yes, but do they? In other words, Alberti bass (or any broken accompaniment)
is not meant to be a solution to a voice leading problem (and this is why I
don't let my students do it, because that's the reason they'd be trying to
use it - hey, I've got parallel 5ths here, what do I do? I know, I'll make
the accompanimnent AB!). What's typically happening is parallelism usually
happens between some chord and a "decorative" chord - i.e. one that has
non-functional or non-progressive function.

There is another, and more important reason in that Alberti chords are
usually implying an entire triad - that is, you're far more likely to get C
G E G with either C E or G above, than C c G c with E above to finish the
chord. They wanted all three chord members present (or in the case of 7th
chords, R 37 or R 5 7) to allow the melody to move about (and not have to
"finish of the chord"). So if you wanted to imply C to am, with a C in the
melody over both chords "proper" voice leading would dictate the following"
C C
G A
E E
C A
But they wouldn't want the accompanimnent to be just A a E a in case the C
did need to move away (obviously there are other bass patterns that do allow
for this though). So they chose a complete harmony over the avoidance of
parallels as the most important issue.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Or, is it some combination of the two (i.e. I would make sure the voice
leading is correct for if it were block chords (3 voices in the bass)
and also make sure the voice leading is correct for if it was just one
voice in the bass that jumps around.

There's yet another practical issue and that's hand size on keyboard
instruments. In some cases, proper voice leading would not allow the
uppermost note to be taken my the LH, so as a result, Alberti-like figures
usually occur in close position. So generally speaking, the voice leading is
usually correct as if it were 4 part block chords, however, the melody is
freer to double anything if the lower notes make a complete triad. Usually,
this includes that the bass will move in counterpoint with the melody (thus
in the I-vi example, the melody often moves up, while the bass moves down,
and many theorists like to add that this contrary motion in the outer
voicesoutweighs any parallels in the inner voices, especially since they
don't appear until later in the measure (well, one unit :-).

Post by m***@gmail.com
In the case of jump bass aka "oom-pah" bass (chopin eflat major
nocturne type stuff), there are frequently 4 notes sounding at the same
time in the left hand if a pedal is used.. Would this be treated as
though it was one big 4 note chord sounding at once for an entire
measure (assuming the same harmony for an entire measure)?

Not always. If it were say, C E G C, then the upper C might move in parallel
with the bass as a doubled part rather than an independent part so it's
still a 3 part chord. Other times you may get exact voice leading. Chopin
especially was beginning to introduce parallel 5ths (usually a P5 as the
lowest two notes) as block chords, so his arpeggiated accompaniments are
more likely to diverge from "the rules" than say Haydn or Mozart (or Alberti
:-).

Post by m***@gmail.com
Or would the bass only be considered three voices as one of the notes
in the "pah" chord that the bass jumps up to is often a duplicate of
the initial bass note at the beginning of the measure but an octave
higher, meaning an orchestration tool as opposed to a seperate voice.

Oops. I should have read further. Yes, this is one possibility I was talking
about above.

Post by m***@gmail.com
What about parallel octaves or fifths caused by voice movement from
"oom" to "pah" or rather the actual jumping of the jump bass. Is this
really considered parallel motion (because if there were block chords
there would be no motion) and if so what voice does the bass note (the
"oom") match up with in the "pah" chord?

Well, even if there is motion, the restrictions of voice leading are
lessened when the harmony does not change. For instance, going CEG to ceg
(octave up) is not considered parallels. Now, Bach would probably not have
done:
E G
C E
G C
E G
Because he was writing four independent parts in chorales and the like, and
again, we'd be more likley to consider this 3 "real" parts and one doubling.
But in a 4 part context this is considered an error. In piano an dlarger
textures it's quite common to see things similar to this where we can
discern 4 parts:
C E
E C
g G
c C
So the PF jumping an octave down is an octave displacement (a repeat
basically).

So without specific chord examples, it would be hard to tell. But basically,
what you're going to typically see is a fluctuation between "correct" 4 part
writing, fewer part writing with octave doublings, and "improper" part
writing. Also it's obviously going to vary from composer to composer, and
with keyboard especially, textures frequently change from 2 to 3 to 4 to 5
parts or more with a single phrase, so there's no one answer to your
question.

Post by m***@gmail.com
I would really appreciate any advice you can give as this is driving me
nuts... I'm trying to do piano composition exercises and I want to make
sure my voice leading is correct.. Thanks!

Rather than making sure your voice leading is correct, you should make sure
your music is stylistically appropriate (if that's the goal of the
assignment). And without specific examples, it would be unfair to you to say
it must be this or that - it really depends on the context. I would say of
course, for caution's sake, you should strive for proper voice leading,
except or until a problem presents itself like doing so would create a bad
voicing, bad spacing, or missing note of the harmony, and in those cases,
unobtrusive parallel 5ths would be OK, but then not between major guide post
chords (I, IV, V in root position).

Motion like CEG to DFA is usually avoided by the introduction of 5-6*
motion, like:
CEG CEA* DFA DFB* EGC FAC FAD* GBD C
But you could certainly find a few examples here and there.

But again, I would not use it to "fix" a part writing problem. And you also
need to keep in mind that Alberti doesn't always represent 3 real parts (as
I know you know) and is often simply an elaboration (or filling in of the
harmony) of the two real parts - melody and bass.

Hope that helps a little.
Post some examples if you've got them.

Steve

[m***@gmail.com]

OK that helps quite a bit.... so a follow up question,

If I had something like

C c
G e
E g
G b
C c'
G
E g
G

(Hopefully the above notation is somewhat understandable)

That is an example I can think of where you would have parallels that
you would not have if block chords were used instead of alberti bass.
(caused by the unaccented apporgiatura on the b). Would that be
considered incorrect parallels or is it considered correct becuase
there would have been no parallels had block chords been used instead?

Thanks

[Steve Latham]

Post by m***@gmail.com
OK that helps quite a bit.... so a follow up question,
If I had something like
C c
G e
E g
G b
C c'
G
E g
G
(Hopefully the above notation is somewhat understandable)

Sorry, I don't get it.

Post by m***@gmail.com
That is an example I can think of where you would have parallels that
you would not have if block chords were used instead of alberti bass.
(caused by the unaccented apporgiatura on the b). Would that be
considered incorrect parallels or is it considered correct becuase
there would have been no parallels had block chords been used instead?

Sorry, I'm still not seeing it. Can you lay it out another way?

Thanks,
Steve

[m***@gmail.com]

No wonder you can't see it as I did it totally wrong so there are no //
5ths

I had a good example at the piano the other day and I thought that was
it but I don't quite remember it now.. I'm going to have to sit down
and figure out what it was.

[Steve Latham]

Post by m***@gmail.com
No wonder you can't see it as I did it totally wrong so there are no //
5ths
I had a good example at the piano the other day and I thought that was
it but I don't quite remember it now.. I'm going to have to sit down
and figure out what it was.

OK. Thought I was crazy or something (still could be though).

You really should check out the Piano Sonatas of Haydn, Mozart, and
Beethoven (especially the Mozart) if you're interested in classical music or
composing in that style at all. Likewise, you can find plenty of info in
Sonatinas (Clementi, Diabelli, etc.). If you can play piano relatively
proficiently, it's not a bad idea to start plodding through these as the
more of them you play, the more second nature it becomes to know when these
things would have been used or not. If you don't play piano well yet, now's
as good a time as any to start honing those skills!

Best,
Steve

[m***@gmail.com]

OK I think I found an example, even if it is somewhat unusual and
atypical, using changing tones around the tonic with an alberti bass.
The E B and G d are the // 5ths.

C c
G
E B
G d
C c
G
E
G

That issue would not occur if block chords were used instead. Is that
something that would need to be fixed to make the voice leading
correct, or is it considered correct becuase it would be correct had
block chords been used? (I know the problem could be easily rectified
by changing the harmony for the B d to a passing 6/4, but I just want
to find out if what I have above would be considered incorrect voice
leading in the common practice classical period.)

[Matthew Fields]

Post by m***@gmail.com
OK I think I found an example, even if it is somewhat unusual and
atypical, using changing tones around the tonic with an alberti bass.
The E B and G d are the // 5ths.
C c
G
E B
G d
C c
G
E
G
That issue would not occur if block chords were used instead. Is that
something that would need to be fixed to make the voice leading
correct, or is it considered correct becuase it would be correct had
block chords been used? (I know the problem could be easily rectified
by changing the harmony for the B d to a passing 6/4, but I just want
to find out if what I have above would be considered incorrect voice
leading in the common practice classical period.)

Um, I think you're writing this vertically rather than horizontally.
At speed, it's perceived as static harmony with a doublestrike ornament
decorating a c. The local sequential fifths are a bit awkward, but not
so awkward that, say, Mahler would disallow them, because the whole
passage is harmonically just this:

c
G
E
C

or, as you were writing it:

CEGc

I think what Steve was talking about was things more like

CGEGCGEG_AECEAECE

where a simple-minded reduction would be to

G E
E C
C A

but a listener accustomed to the style might hear that as more like
this reduction:

G A E
E E
C C
C A

[Steve Latham]

Post by Matthew Fields

Post by m***@gmail.com
OK I think I found an example, even if it is somewhat unusual and
atypical, using changing tones around the tonic with an alberti bass.
The E B and G d are the // 5ths.
C c
G
E B
G d
C c
G
E
G

[snip]

Post by Matthew Fields
Um, I think you're writing this vertically rather than horizontally.

That's why I couldn't figure out what you were doing before MDU???

Post by Matthew Fields
At speed, it's perceived as static harmony with a doublestrike ornament
decorating a c. The local sequential fifths are a bit awkward, but not
so awkward that, say, Mahler would disallow them, because the whole
c
G
E
C
CEGc

And again, as I was pointing out, a static harmony. Also, we see many
instances where Bahc uses parallel 5ths even in a chordal setting, but the
5ths are created between two different types of non-chord tones occurring
simultatneously and Bach must have felt since these were not beat to beat,
offbeat, or adjacency parallels, they were a non-issue.

Post by Matthew Fields
I think what Steve was talking about was things more like
CGEGCGEG_AECEAECE

Exactly.

Post by Matthew Fields
where a simple-minded reduction would be to

Ow.

Post by Matthew Fields
G E
E C
C A
but a listener accustomed to the style might hear that as more like
G A E
E E
C C
C A

Right, so in essence, there are no "real" parallels, only what you can find
on the paper, and possibly listen for if determined to do so.

Steve

[Victor Eijkhout]

Post by Steve Latham
G F D F G F D F C G E G C G E G, etc.

Ugly. Replace the second GFDF by BGFG.

(I'm sure I'm missing your point, but I just needed to throw that in.)

Victor.

[Steve Latham]

Post by Victor Eijkhout

Post by Steve Latham
G F D F G F D F C G E G C G E G, etc.

Ugly. Replace the second GFDF by BGFG.

The B is in the melody.

Steve

[Matthew Fields]

Albert bass is 3 voices, and you won't see parallel fifths in those
three voices in, say, Mozart. Keyboard music includes a large layer of
instrumentation as well as counterpoint, and thus it's not unusual to
find parts orchestrated in parallel octaves, whereas from a
counterpoint perspective that's just a single melody. Lines may start
and stop and overlap each other, as well, so keyboard music is a bit
tricky to account for in terms of 4-part harmonies with 4 notes on every
chord.

[Steve Latham]

Post by Matthew Fields
Albert bass is 3 voices, and you won't see parallel fifths in those
three voices in, say, Mozart.

Actually that's not true Matt. I can cite two examples - though I'd have to
find the K numbers, but in D major - a Theme and Variations - the theme
starts of with two A4 pickups to D5 on the first full measure, and the
Alberti begins underneath like so:
D A F# A to B F# D F# etc.
The other is a slow movement in Fminor and it moves from CEG (c) to DbFAb
(bn) from V ti Ger+6 "in parallel" in the lower parts.

I'm sure there are others as well.

Best,
Steve

[Matthew Fields]

Post by Steve Latham

Post by Matthew Fields
Albert bass is 3 voices, and you won't see parallel fifths in those
three voices in, say, Mozart.

Actually that's not true Matt. I can cite two examples - though I'd have to
find the K numbers, but in D major - a Theme and Variations - the theme
starts of with two A4 pickups to D5 on the first full measure, and the
D A F# A to B F# D F# etc.
The other is a slow movement in Fminor and it moves from CEG (c) to DbFAb
(bn) from V ti Ger+6 "in parallel" in the lower parts.
I'm sure there are others as well.
Best,
Steve

Yes, but you know as well as I do that it's a common-tone motion, and
a parallel-motion reduction doesn't quite do justice to what the ear hears,
precisely because it isn't block harmony.

[Steve Latham]

Post by Matthew Fields

Post by Steve Latham

Post by Matthew Fields
Albert bass is 3 voices, and you won't see parallel fifths in those
three voices in, say, Mozart.

Actually that's not true Matt. I can cite two examples - though I'd have to
find the K numbers, but in D major - a Theme and Variations - the theme
starts of with two A4 pickups to D5 on the first full measure, and the
D A F# A to B F# D F# etc.
The other is a slow movement in Fminor and it moves from CEG (c) to DbFAb
(bn) from V ti Ger+6 "in parallel" in the lower parts.
I'm sure there are others as well.
Best,
Steve

Yes, but you know as well as I do that it's a common-tone motion, and
a parallel-motion reduction doesn't quite do justice to what the ear hears,
precisely because it isn't block harmony.

Sure, but I think that's where our OP is having difficulty making the
distinction (as others do too I'm sure). So they sure look like parallels on
the page which unfortunately opens the door to the entire "does Alberti Bass
cover up parallels?" question. So to our OP, the reason these "parallels"
are "allowed" is that we do not actually hear them as such, but one has to
be careful in applying this idea willy-nilly - it is not a "correction" of
bad voice leading, but, as Matt points out, more a "revoicing" of what would
have been common tone movement.

Best,
Steve

[Tom K.]

Post by Steve Latham

Post by Matthew Fields
Albert bass is 3 voices, and you won't see parallel fifths in those
three voices in, say, Mozart.

Actually that's not true Matt. I can cite two examples - though I'd have
to find the K numbers, but in D major - a Theme and Variations - the theme
starts of with two A4 pickups to D5 on the first full measure, and the
D A F# A to B F# D F# etc.

K.284 - last movement. The Alberti 5ths appear in the 1st measure & the
Partial "A" return in m.14 of the theme. Also found as 16th note I - vi
arpeggiations in Var. 4, and again as an Alberti pattern in Var. 11 - each
time in mm1 and 14. Still not too bad for a rather lengthy movement for the
period

Post by Steve Latham
The other is a slow movement in Fminor and it moves from CEG (c) to DbFAb
(bn) from V ti Ger+6 "in parallel" in the lower parts.

Sounds like K.280 (Sonata # 2 in F, 2nd mmt.) where the German 6th is a sort
of neighbor to V in mm46-48. Of course, 5ths in a Ger6~V resolution are
generally accepted. But Steve, you missed the first example in mm12~14
where Mozart writes the same thing in Ab (Eb-G-Bb-Eb to Fb-Ab-C-D nat. and
back).

Post by Steve Latham
I'm sure there are others as well.

Same movement, m19 - again in a i-VI progression, this time with both chord
3rds doubled in the soprano!
Also K.333, Sonata #13 in Bb, 3rd mmt. - in m,49 there is another Alberti
I-vi (Bb-D-F to G-Bb-D). In all of these I-vi examples, the 5ths are brief
as the vi chord is invariably followed by a ii6-V7.

Tom K.

Tom K.

[Steve Latham]

Post by Tom K.

Post by Steve Latham

Post by Matthew Fields
Albert bass is 3 voices, and you won't see parallel fifths in those
three voices in, say, Mozart.

Actually that's not true Matt. I can cite two examples - though I'd have
to find the K numbers, but in D major - a Theme and Variations - the
theme starts of with two A4 pickups to D5 on the first full measure, and
D A F# A to B F# D F# etc.

K.284 - last movement. The Alberti 5ths appear in the 1st measure & the
Partial "A" return in m.14 of the theme. Also found as 16th note I - vi
arpeggiations in Var. 4, and again as an Alberti pattern in Var. 11 - each
time in mm1 and 14. Still not too bad for a rather lengthy movement for
the period

Post by Steve Latham
The other is a slow movement in Fminor and it moves from CEG (c) to DbFAb
(bn) from V ti Ger+6 "in parallel" in the lower parts.

Sounds like K.280 (Sonata # 2 in F, 2nd mmt.) where the German 6th is a
sort of neighbor to V in mm46-48.

I think that's right.

Of course, 5ths in a Ger6~V resolution are

Post by Tom K.
generally accepted.

Well, "accepted" - I'd say they're more often covered up by a cadential 6/6
or suspension or Alberti Bass! or something - that was just an example I
could think of where you had chords whose "roots" were a second apart.

But Steve, you missed the first example in mm12~14

Post by Tom K.
where Mozart writes the same thing in Ab (Eb-G-Bb-Eb to Fb-Ab-C-D nat. and
back).

Sorry, I don't have it in front of me. But I do recall the Fb note in the
key of Ab - I was just thinking of the other one from memory.

Post by Tom K.

Post by Steve Latham
I'm sure there are others as well.

Same movement, m19 - again in a i-VI progression, this time with both
chord 3rds doubled in the soprano!
Also K.333, Sonata #13 in Bb, 3rd mmt. - in m,49 there is another Alberti
I-vi (Bb-D-F to G-Bb-D). In all of these I-vi examples, the 5ths are
brief as the vi chord is invariably followed by a ii6-V7.

Yes, very good - and to our OP, this is the kind of context I was talking
about in which you need to see these things. If you wrote "parallel" alberti
on a I vi ii6 V7 progression, I couldn't fault you any more than Mozart (
:-) ), but if your piece were to just go I - IV - I - V - I all in strict
parallel root position triads, then I'd be a little more concerned!

Thanks Tom,
Steve

[John Doe]

IMHO, looking at tons of piano sheet music, Alberti bass & voice leading (as
in counterpoint) are as related as planets and candy bars.

As I see it, Alberti bass patterns are just a harmonic decoration of a
melody line, they're HORIZONTAL hamony (as opposed to VERTICAL harmony in
counterpoint) and from that perspective I believe that the rules of not
having parallel 5ths or octaves are that relevant.

Just look at beethoven's sonatas or chopin's nocturnes

MIguel

Post by m***@gmail.com
Hello All,
I'm studying SATB harmony and I'm having some difficulties in
understanding how the voice leading rules apply to various styles of
piano music. I have several textbooks on harmony but none adequately
explain this....
For instance, with alberti bass or otherwise arpeggiated bass, it is
conceivable that there could be parallel 5ths or parallel octaves
introduced that would not be present if block chords were used instead.
As far as voice leading considerations go, should I treat the alberti
bass exactly the same as the block chords and ignore any parallels that
are caused by its use instead of block chords? Is the alberti bass
considered to be 3 voices or is it one voice hopping around by thirds?
If the alberti bass is one voice hopping around by thirds, then one
could get away with voice leadig that would not be permissable in block
chords (i.e. FCAC GBDB) I would think.
Or, is it some combination of the two (i.e. I would make sure the voice
leading is correct for if it were block chords (3 voices in the bass)
and also make sure the voice leading is correct for if it was just one
voice in the bass that jumps around.
In the case of jump bass aka "oom-pah" bass (chopin eflat major
nocturne type stuff), there are frequently 4 notes sounding at the same
time in the left hand if a pedal is used.. Would this be treated as
though it was one big 4 note chord sounding at once for an entire
measure (assuming the same harmony for an entire measure)?
Or would the bass only be considered three voices as one of the notes
in the "pah" chord that the bass jumps up to is often a duplicate of
the initial bass note at the beginning of the measure but an octave
higher, meaning an orchestration tool as opposed to a seperate voice.
What about parallel octaves or fifths caused by voice movement from
"oom" to "pah" or rather the actual jumping of the jump bass. Is this
really considered parallel motion (because if there were block chords
there would be no motion) and if so what voice does the bass note (the
"oom") match up with in the "pah" chord?
I would really appreciate any advice you can give as this is driving me
nuts... I'm trying to do piano composition exercises and I want to make
sure my voice leading is correct.. Thanks!

[John Doe]

Correction of text below: the rules [no parallel 5ths / oct] are NOT quite
relevant. sorry for omission of word...

miguel

Post by John Doe
IMHO, looking at tons of piano sheet music, Alberti bass & voice leading
(as in counterpoint) are as related as planets and candy bars.
As I see it, Alberti bass patterns are just a harmonic decoration of a
melody line, they're HORIZONTAL hamony (as opposed to VERTICAL harmony in
counterpoint) and from that perspective I believe that the rules of not
having parallel 5ths or octaves are that relevant.
Just look at beethoven's sonatas or chopin's nocturnes
MIguel

Post by m***@gmail.com
Hello All,
I'm studying SATB harmony and I'm having some difficulties in
understanding how the voice leading rules apply to various styles of
piano music. I have several textbooks on harmony but none adequately
explain this....
For instance, with alberti bass or otherwise arpeggiated bass, it is
conceivable that there could be parallel 5ths or parallel octaves
introduced that would not be present if block chords were used instead.
As far as voice leading considerations go, should I treat the alberti
bass exactly the same as the block chords and ignore any parallels that
are caused by its use instead of block chords? Is the alberti bass
considered to be 3 voices or is it one voice hopping around by thirds?
If the alberti bass is one voice hopping around by thirds, then one
could get away with voice leadig that would not be permissable in block
chords (i.e. FCAC GBDB) I would think.
Or, is it some combination of the two (i.e. I would make sure the voice
leading is correct for if it were block chords (3 voices in the bass)
and also make sure the voice leading is correct for if it was just one
voice in the bass that jumps around.
In the case of jump bass aka "oom-pah" bass (chopin eflat major
nocturne type stuff), there are frequently 4 notes sounding at the same
time in the left hand if a pedal is used.. Would this be treated as
though it was one big 4 note chord sounding at once for an entire
measure (assuming the same harmony for an entire measure)?
Or would the bass only be considered three voices as one of the notes
in the "pah" chord that the bass jumps up to is often a duplicate of
the initial bass note at the beginning of the measure but an octave
higher, meaning an orchestration tool as opposed to a seperate voice.
What about parallel octaves or fifths caused by voice movement from
"oom" to "pah" or rather the actual jumping of the jump bass. Is this
really considered parallel motion (because if there were block chords
there would be no motion) and if so what voice does the bass note (the
"oom") match up with in the "pah" chord?
I would really appreciate any advice you can give as this is driving me
nuts... I'm trying to do piano composition exercises and I want to make
sure my voice leading is correct.. Thanks!

[Matthew Fields]

Post by John Doe
IMHO, looking at tons of piano sheet music, Alberti bass & voice leading (as
in counterpoint) are as related as planets and candy bars.
As I see it, Alberti bass patterns are just a harmonic decoration of a
melody line, they're HORIZONTAL hamony (as opposed to VERTICAL harmony in
counterpoint) and from that perspective I believe that the rules of not
having parallel 5ths or octaves are that relevant.
Just look at beethoven's sonatas or chopin's nocturnes
MIguel

I suppose you perceive no harmony at all in the first prelude in
well-tempered clavier, either. Thank you very much for playing.

[Steve Latham]

Post by John Doe
IMHO, looking at tons of piano sheet music, Alberti bass & voice leading
(as in counterpoint) are as related as planets and candy bars.
As I see it, Alberti bass patterns are just a harmonic decoration of a
melody line, they're HORIZONTAL hamony (as opposed to VERTICAL harmony in
counterpoint) and from that perspective I believe that the rules of not
having parallel 5ths or octaves are that relevant.

Miguel, you seem to have this a little bit backwards:

Counterpoint is HORIZONTAL - it consists of multiple lines that do create
vertical chords when you look at the simultaneities.

Alberti patterns are decorations of a VERTICAL harmony - a "broken" chord.

However, in actuality, there is still a lot of linearity to be found in
broken chordal accompaniments despite their otherwise vertical nature. So it
is better to say that Alberti bass can be simply vertical (a chord
progression given an "active" figuration), though it can still retain a
"multi-voice" approach as in counterpoint depending on how it's used.

Best,
Steve

[John Doe]

Hi steve

i see your point, but i still think it is ok to view the counterpoint
harmony as vertical. given the cantus firmus, the other voices are added
with prime focus on making the harmony work out vertically (i.e. adding
notes - consonances & dissonances only relate to each other in the same
chord, the bass note in particular). much less, if not none at all,
attention is given to chord progressions (save for the 1-but-last chord).

alberti bass patterns (even though the're the break-up of an otherwise
vertical block chord) tend to have a horizontal nature since they are part
of a (well thought out) horizontal harmony: the progression of chords.

it's not backwards, it's just another perspective. and parallel 5ths are
still ok here.


rgds
miguel

Post by Steve Latham

Post by John Doe
IMHO, looking at tons of piano sheet music, Alberti bass & voice leading
(as in counterpoint) are as related as planets and candy bars.
As I see it, Alberti bass patterns are just a harmonic decoration of a
melody line, they're HORIZONTAL hamony (as opposed to VERTICAL harmony in
counterpoint) and from that perspective I believe that the rules of not
having parallel 5ths or octaves are that relevant.

Counterpoint is HORIZONTAL - it consists of multiple lines that do create
vertical chords when you look at the simultaneities.
Alberti patterns are decorations of a VERTICAL harmony - a "broken" chord.
However, in actuality, there is still a lot of linearity to be found in
broken chordal accompaniments despite their otherwise vertical nature. So
it is better to say that Alberti bass can be simply vertical (a chord
progression given an "active" figuration), though it can still retain a
"multi-voice" approach as in counterpoint depending on how it's used.
Best,
Steve

[Matthew Fields]

Post by John Doe
Hi steve
i see your point, but i still think it is ok to view the counterpoint
harmony as vertical. given the cantus firmus, the other voices are added
with prime focus on making the harmony work out vertically (i.e. adding
notes - consonances & dissonances only relate to each other in the same
chord, the bass note in particular). much less, if not none at all,
attention is given to chord progressions (save for the 1-but-last chord).
alberti bass patterns (even though the're the break-up of an otherwise
vertical block chord) tend to have a horizontal nature since they are part
of a (well thought out) horizontal harmony: the progression of chords.
it's not backwards, it's just another perspective. and parallel 5ths are
still ok here.

Are you talking about music, or just making stuff up using terms from
a music book somewhere? Really, Steve has set you straight and we've
explained to you in detail the absense of parallel fifths in all the
cited passages.

[Steve Latham]

Post by John Doe
Hi steve
i see your point, but i still think it is ok to view the counterpoint
harmony as vertical. given the cantus firmus,

Umm, cantus firmus does not really exist in pieces which have an Alberti
Bass accompaniment.

the other voices are added

Post by John Doe
with prime focus on making the harmony work out vertically (i.e. adding
notes - consonances & dissonances only relate to each other in the same
chord, the bass note in particular). much less, if not none at all,
attention is given to chord progressions (save for the 1-but-last chord).

It is true that Alberti type accompaniments are generally a figuration of an
otherwise vertical sonority, though how each sonority moves to the next can
happen in two ways: 1 as a "chord to chord" relationship, without much
attention to the voice-leading of any of the chord members, or 2 as a linear
relationship where the individula chord members are also playing the role of
an individual part, which will take on appropriate voice leading.

In practice though, music is often a combination of the two.

Post by John Doe
alberti bass patterns (even though the're the break-up of an otherwise
vertical block chord) tend to have a horizontal nature since they are part
of a (well thought out) horizontal harmony: the progression of chords.

Not always.

Post by John Doe
it's not backwards, it's just another perspective. and parallel 5ths are
still ok here.

Saying counterpoint is vertical, and chords are horizontal is backwards. And
when real horizontal part-writing is used in either a contrapuntal or
chordal framework, parallel 5ths are not OK. It is only when the 5ths are
the result of a re-voicing of what would otherwise be an objectionable
motion that they are deemed useable (not including the myriad other ways
5ths can be disguised, but that's a separate issue).

Sorry you disagree.

Steve

[Charlton Wilbur]

JD> Hi steve i see your point, but i still think it is ok to view
JD> the counterpoint harmony as vertical. given the cantus firmus,
JD> the other voices are added with prime focus on making the
JD> harmony work out vertically (i.e. adding notes - consonances &
JD> dissonances only relate to each other in the same chord, the
JD> bass note in particular). much less, if not none at all,
JD> attention is given to chord progressions (save for the
JD> 1-but-last chord).

You're separating harmony and counterpoint far too much, and confusing
counterpoint with the pedagogical approach used to isolate
counterpoint from harmony for the sake of studying it in isolation.
They're two sides of the same coin -- the same thing looked at two
different ways.

Charlton

[Charlton Wilbur]

JD> IMHO, looking at tons of piano sheet music, Alberti bass &
JD> voice leading (as in counterpoint) are as related as planets
JD> and candy bars.

No, the moon is made of green *cheese*, not chocolate and nougat.

JD> As I see it, Alberti bass patterns are just a harmonic
JD> decoration of a melody line, they're HORIZONTAL hamony (as
JD> opposed to VERTICAL harmony in counterpoint) and from that
JD> perspective I believe that the rules of not having parallel
JD> 5ths or octaves are that relevant.

JD> Just look at beethoven's sonatas or chopin's nocturnes

... and if you do, you'll often find that the Alberti bass can be
understood as three parallel time-separated lines. In particular,
Chopin's voiceleading is often exquisitely well crafted.

Charlton

[John Doe]

Post by Charlton Wilbur
JD> IMHO, looking at tons of piano sheet music, Alberti bass &
JD> voice leading (as in counterpoint) are as related as planets
JD> and candy bars.
No, the moon is made of green *cheese*, not chocolate and nougat.

Indeed. so they're still ages apart.

Post by Charlton Wilbur
JD> As I see it, Alberti bass patterns are just a harmonic
JD> decoration of a melody line, they're HORIZONTAL hamony (as
JD> opposed to VERTICAL harmony in counterpoint) and from that
JD> perspective I believe that the rules of not having parallel
JD> 5ths or octaves are that relevant.
JD> Just look at beethoven's sonatas or chopin's nocturnes
... and if you do, you'll often find that the Alberti bass can be
understood as three parallel time-separated lines. In particular,
Chopin's voiceleading is often exquisitely well crafted.

which does not mean there are no parallel 5ths or octaves. and yes, if you
really, really want to, you can understand alberti bass patterns as such.
but as they are clearly all part of the same (accompanying) voice, there is
only theoretical point in doing so.

Miguel

Post by Charlton Wilbur
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com

[Matthew Fields]

Post by John Doe

Post by Charlton Wilbur
JD> IMHO, looking at tons of piano sheet music, Alberti bass &
JD> voice leading (as in counterpoint) are as related as planets
JD> and candy bars.
No, the moon is made of green *cheese*, not chocolate and nougat.

Indeed. so they're still ages apart.

Post by Charlton Wilbur
JD> As I see it, Alberti bass patterns are just a harmonic
JD> decoration of a melody line, they're HORIZONTAL hamony (as
JD> opposed to VERTICAL harmony in counterpoint) and from that
JD> perspective I believe that the rules of not having parallel
JD> 5ths or octaves are that relevant.
JD> Just look at beethoven's sonatas or chopin's nocturnes
... and if you do, you'll often find that the Alberti bass can be
understood as three parallel time-separated lines. In particular,
Chopin's voiceleading is often exquisitely well crafted.

which does not mean there are no parallel 5ths or octaves. and yes, if you
really, really want to, you can understand alberti bass patterns as such.
but as they are clearly all part of the same (accompanying) voice, there is
only theoretical point in doing so.

Okay, you make your one-voice Alberti bass patterns, and the rest of us
will make good music.