• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too…” Pope Benedict XVI (7 July 2007)

  • Our Team
  • Catholic Hymnal
  • Jogues Missal
  • Site Map
  • Donate
Views from the Choir Loft

Jeff Ostrowski • “Three Rules For Good Music”

Jeff Ostrowski · September 7, 2020

F COURSE IT’S POSSIBLE I may change my mind tomorrow, but I would like to propose three “rules for good music” as follows: (1) Mysterious Balance; (2) Following Rules; (3) Melodic & Contrapuntal Contours. The first rule (“mysterious essence”) is the most difficult, because it deals with the magical essence of what makes music sound good: knowing just how frequently to repeat a theme, how much the ear desires certain textures, how quickly the harmonic rhythm should change, how much chromaticism to use, and so forth. Even the greatest musicologists struggle with this one! As Franz Liszt declared: “It is easy to say that you like a piece of music, but very difficult to explain why a piece of music is great.”

The second rule (“following the rules”) is simple and straightforward. Music must follow the rules of the genre: if it be 18th-century counterpoint, a whole bunch of rules must be followed; the same for 16th-century counterpoint; the same for modal chant harmonies; the same for the classical period (such as Haydn, Mozart, and early Schubert); and so forth.

The third rule is what I will speak of today. There are accepted rules for how to write a good melody. We talk about those rules each year during the Sacred Music Symposium. Furthermore, we have often talked about how “mathematical” is music by Renaissance masters such as Father Guerrero, Father Morales, Father Victoria, Marenzio, Palestrina, Lassus, and all the rest. But we have not spoken too much about Baroque music, so let’s do that today.

Example from the Baroque

A few days ago, I posted a recording by Daniel Chorzempa of Johann Sebastian Bach’s Passacaglia and Fugue in C Minor (BWV 582), which many musicians consider to be the most powerful and magnificent organ composition of all time. That piece falls into two sections: The PASSACAGLIA itself, and the FUGUE. (A “passacaglia” is a type of composition similar to a “chaconne”—basically the bass line repeats as an ostinato.)

Look at the counter-subject Bach uses at the beginning of the piece:

Now look at the counter-subject Bach uses for the Fugue:

Do you see how it’s a “mirror image” of the way Bach introduced the piece? That is to say, “upside down” he begins the second half of the piece. Relationships such as these add depth and interest to great masterpieces.

Please let me know if you think I’m correct in the Facebook combox. Thanks!

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Follow the Discussion on Facebook

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: C Minor Passacaglia, Johann Sebastian Bach Last Updated: September 7, 2020

Subscribe to the CCW Mailing List

Jeff Ostrowski

About Jeff Ostrowski

Jeff Ostrowski holds his B.M. in Music Theory from the University of Kansas (2004). He resides with his wife and children in Los Angeles.—(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Quick Thoughts

Surprising Popularity!

One of our most popular downloads has proven to be the organ accompaniment to “The Monastery Hymnal” (131 pages). This book was compiled, arranged, and edited by Achille P. Bragers, who studied at the Lemmensinstituut (Belgium) about thirty years before that school produced the NOH. Bragers might be considered an example of Belgium “Stile Antico” whereas Flor Peeters and Jules Van Nuffel represented Belgium “Prima Pratica.” You can download the hymnal by Bragers at this link.

—Jeff Ostrowski
15 February 2021 • To Capitalize…?

In the Introit for the 6th Sunday after Pentecost, there is a question regarding whether to capitalize the word “christi.” The Vulgata does not, because Psalm 27 is not specifically referring to Our Lord, but rather to God’s “anointed one.” However, Missals tend to capitalize it, such as the official 1962 Missal and also a book from 1777 called Missel de Paris. Something tells me Monsignor Knox would not capitalize it.

—Jeff Ostrowski
15 February 2021 • “Sung vs. Spoken”

We have spoken quite a bit about “sung vs. spoken” antiphons. We have also noted that the texts of the Graduale Romanum sometimes don’t match the Missal texts (in the Extraordinary Form) because the Mass Propers are older than Saint Jerome’s Vulgate, and sometimes came from the ITALA versions of Sacred Scripture. On occasion, the Missal itself doesn’t match the Vulgate—cf. the Introit “Esto Mihi.” The Vulgate has: “Esto mihi in Deum protectórem et in domum refúgii…” but the Missal and Graduale Romanum use “Esto mihi in Deum protectórem et in locum refúgii…” The 1970s “spoken propers” use the traditional version, as you can see.

—Jeff Ostrowski

Random Quote

When Christ gave the bread, he did not say, “This is the symbol of my body,” but, “This is my body.” In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, “This is the symbol of my blood,” but, “This is my blood.”

— Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, writing in the 5th Century

Recent Posts

  • Is This Really The Same Church??
  • Solmization from the Inside
  • “Old Solesmes” Method • What’s That?
  • Four Reasons to Improvise at the Organ
  • The Liturgical Request: “Iube, Domne, Benedicere”

Copyright © 2021 Corpus Christi Watershed · Charles Garnier on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.