Part-writing — where it appears
Named by 7 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
What the rules cost
The prohibitions of counterpoint are constraints on a minimisation already computed here, so each one has a price in semitones of extra motion. Priced over every melody a progression admits, most of them turn out to be free, the dearest is not the famous one, and two of them cost no motion at all — they cost tunes.
A voice is a stream, and the ear decides which
Seven earlier essays have assigned voices to notes. Whether a listener follows the assignment is a separate question with laboratory numbers attached, and the numbers are unkind to it: two parts closer than about five semitones cannot be heard as two at any speed, a third of the gaps in the cheapest four-part writing are inside that limit, and in a third of chord changes the ear's own rule for continuing a line does not recover the parts as written.
Three notations, one progression
A figured bass, a Roman numeral and a chord symbol are three professional notations for the same four chords, and the number of four-part realisations each of them admits can be counted exactly rather than argued about. With no parallel fifths or octaves the counts are sixteen billion, fifty-nine million and two million: a factor of eight thousand between the loosest and the tightest. What each one collapses is what its tradition thought a chord was, and the three do not agree.
Why the exercise is in four parts
Eight earlier essays move four voices, and nothing here ever chose four. Cut one choir's compass into three parts instead and the two most famous prohibitions in music cost exactly nothing — the cheapest realisation already obeys them. Cut it into six and they cost more than half a semitone per voice per chord change, because a parallel octave needs a doubled note and six voices sharing three notes can hardly avoid one. Four is the smallest number of parts at which the rules have a price at all, and it is the largest at which the price is small.
The note that sounds twice
A triad has three notes and a four-part texture has four voices, so one note is doubled — and the voicing model used here leaves the choice free because the rules have an opinion about it. Asked properly, the arithmetic agrees with the treatises for the first time in nine essays: root, then fifth, then third. For a minor triad it does not agree, and for a symmetric chord it correctly has nothing to say.
The listener is given the top voice, and the bass as a sine
Four earlier essays put the masker and the probe in the same voice. Put them in different voices — a four-part texture at one level — and the soprano arrives with all eight of its partials, the alto with five, the tenor with two and the bass with one. Balancing the loudness, which is the constraint a scoring is solved under, changes none of that: equal loudness is not equal spectrum and cannot be made so.
Four parts are easier to read than two
Twelve earlier essays read one line, and a score is several at once. Measured through the voice-leading model, a notehead of a four-part chorale asks a reader for 1.30 bits and a note of an independent line asks 1.89 — so twice the ink is less than three quarters of the load. The reason is a boundary those essays already established: a duet has no complete voicing of any triad at all, so two parts cannot be read from their harmony and have to be read as two melodies.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
CounterpointVoice-leadingVoicingInversionNotationOrchestrationTriadAuditory scene analysisChord qualityContrary motionCritical bandwidthDoubling