Harmonizing Chorales Systematically: A Translation of G. H. Stölzel’s Kurzer und gründlicher Unterricht (Brief and Thorough Instruction), ms. ca. 1719–49

Part One:

• Introduction [1.1]
• Summary of Stölzel’s Method [2.1]
• Systematic Investigation of Stölzel’s Method [3.1]
• Sample Chorales Harmonized with Stölzel’s Method [4.1]
• Works Cited

Part Two:

• G. H. Stölzel’s Kurzer und gründlicher Unterricht (Brief and Thorough Instruction)
• Editorial Principles [5.1]
• Translation and Modern Edition

Part One

Introduction

[1.1] Chorale harmonization has been an integral part of Western musical training for over two centuries. Yet one often hears complaints from students and colleagues alike that chorale harmonization remains a vexing and exasperating process. In part due to such difficulties, some critics, like the authors of the 2014 Manifesto published by the College Music Society, would prefer to see the chorale’s role downplayed in music theory curricula.⁽¹⁾ The Manifesto reflects a growing movement in the English-speaking music theory community at large towards a more culturally inclusive, less technical, and more market-driven curriculum. Chorales—often seen as outdated, overly complex, and irrelevant to today’s musicians—are among the most common candidates for the chopping block.⁽²⁾ Such criticism is indeed necessary and desirable for the continued relevance of music theory in college curricula, for only through such debate do we come to re-evaluate our collective priorities and methods. It is not the goal of this article to mount a rigorous defense of the enduring pedagogical value of chorales and part writing.⁽³⁾ Rather, the objective here is to showcase a little-known eighteenth-century source that offers strikingly clear and simple principles by which one can systematically harmonize a chorale. The source offers what is to my knowledge the earliest description of how to invent a bass line to a given chorale melody.⁽⁴⁾ Part One of this article outlines the historical context and pedagogical value of the source while also summarizing its contents and developing some of the concepts found therein. Part Two is a parallel translation with modern musical examples and editorial commentary. In sum, this article aims to bring historical theory and modern pedagogy into productive dialogue in hopes of alleviating some of the frustrations that present-day students and teachers frequently encounter when harmonizing chorales.

[1.2] The source under consideration is Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel’s (1690–1749) undated manuscript treatise, Kurzer und gründlicher Unterricht (Brief and Thorough Instruction).⁽⁵⁾ The scribe of the treatise is currently unknown. Stölzel was a prolific central-German composer, who, after study in Leipzig and travel to Italy and Prague, eventually settled in Gotha in 1719, where he remained until his death in 1749. Since the title page of the Kurzer und gründlicher Unterricht names Stölzel as Capellmeister in Gotha, we can date it at least within the years 1719–49. That Stölzel quotes Johann David Heinichen’s 1711 treatise, rather than Heinichen’s 1728 treatise, suggests a potential date between 1719 and 1728, since after 1728 Stölzel presumably would have cited Heinichen’s more recent work, but this remains mere speculation. One assumes Stölzel compiled the “Unterricht” for the numerous pupils who studied with him during this time (Bert 2016). Stölzel’s renown as a composer is attested by the fact that Lorenz Mizler, who admitted him into his Correspondierende Societät der musikalischen Wissenschaften in 1739 (ten years before J. S. Bach), ranked him above Bach in the pantheon of German composers (Hennenberg 2001).

[1.3] The present article may be understood as a contribution to a growing body of literature aimed at reassessing our understanding of the pedagogical role of the chorale in eighteenth-century Germany.⁽⁶⁾ Recent philological discoveries have revealed the existence of a long-overlooked pedagogical tradition involving a simple, thoroughbass-centered kind of chorale harmonization. This more basic style differs from that found in J. S. Bach’s vocal chorale settings, which have been held up as idealized microcosms of baroque counterpoint for centuries. Many newly discovered sources also contain multiple basses under each chorale melody, a technique apparently used not only by organists accompanying multiple verses of a chorale in the church service, but also by budding composers in order to develop their variation technique. Interestingly, this thoroughbass-centered, multiple-bass chorale tradition has strong ties to J. S. Bach’s circle of pupils.⁽⁷⁾ Through C. P. E. Bach’s account, we know that chorale harmonization played an integral role in his father’s teaching: C. P. E. describes how his father’s students would first add middle voices to an outer-voice framework and then compose their own basses and middle voices.⁽⁸⁾ Since Stölzel was a contemporary of Bach, this article opens yet another compelling avenue of inquiry into historical methods of chorale harmonization in Bach’s day. Yet at the same time, we need not reference Bach in order to find historical and pedagogical value in Stölzel’s treatise.

[1.4] It is worth noting that chorale harmonization in itself is not actually Stölzel’s primary goal. Rather, as the full title of his treatise conveys, his goal is to teach the reader “in a short time how to compose a contrapunctum simplex, but without sixths, in four voices.”⁽⁹⁾ Simplex means note-against-note counterpoint using only consonant intervals. In this context, the chorale merely provides the point of departure in Stölzel’s method. Yet there certainly would have been easier ways to start instruction for beginners (Stölzel’s target audience), such as with figured bass (as Bach did with his pupils; see note 8). Stölzel probably framed his compositional method within the tradition of chorale harmonization because many of his pupils were likely beginning organists. By combining four-part composition with chorale harmonization, Stölzel thus increased the potential usefulness of his method. The key to Stölzel’s method of inventing a bass line below a given chorale involves a blending of practical and speculative theory: the tabula naturalis and the trias harmonica, respectively. The following is a brief overview of these traditions.

[1.5] The tabula tradition surfaces in various seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century treatises.⁽¹⁰⁾ One of the latest (and historically closest to Stölzel) is Johann Walther’s manuscript treatise, Praecepta der Musicalischen Composition ([1708] 1955). Walther’s formulation of the tabulae is shown in Example 1 (with editorial annotations). The tabulae serve essentially to “automate” the composition of upper voices to a given type of bass motion, either ascending or descending. It is assumed that one begins with two pitches in the bass and one or more notes over the first bass pitch. For instance, the soprano voice begins with a fifth in the far upper-left corner in Example 1a. If the bass ascends by a second, third, or fourth, the soprano should proceed to a third against the bass. As the editorial circles show, the intervallic progressions rotate according to set patterns. Note that the patterns associated with the ascending and descending melodic fifth in the bass actually correspond to the opposite circle. This point is fairly obvious, considering that an ascending fifth inverts to a descending fourth (yet Walther makes no mention of this inconsistency). For simplicity, we will focus on the tabula naturalis in Example 1a, which tabulates the “natural” intervallic progressions. But Walther and other authors also give a tabula necessitatis, which shows the exceptions to the “natural” cases and is only to be used when “necessary.” This is shown in Example 1b. In essence, the necessitatis table reverses the direction of the intervallic progressions shown in the circles in Example 1a. With ascending bass motions, for example, a fifth above the bass now proceeds to an octave above the bass—that is, the intervals shown in the circle now rotate clockwise rather than counter-clockwise.

[1.6] As we can see, the tabula tradition as shown in Example 1 uses exclusively the intervals 3, 5, and 8, or those corresponding to the trias harmonica. Most authors who treat the tabula make note of this relationship. Since the emergence of the trias harmonica in German-speaking lands in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth-centuries, particularly in the writings of Johannes Lippius (1585–1612), it served as a means of conceptualizing the triad within Christian symbolism of the trinity. To what extent the primarily speculative trias harmonica tradition impacted practical composition training throughout the seventeenth-century remains an open question. By the early eighteenth century, trias harmonica theory was on the wane, often being replaced by a more practical approach centered around thoroughbass. But remnants of trias harmonica theory nevertheless played a central role in Stölzel’s method, as we will see in the following section.

Summary of Stölzel’s Method

[2.1] Stölzel’s method of inventing a bass line to a chorale involves first defining the scale degrees of the chorale melody within the major/minor key paradigm, not the modal system. This is somewhat unusual, since older chorale melodies emerged within the modal system and were still understood as modal by many eighteenth-century authors.⁽¹¹⁾ Since the only treatise Stölzel cites is Heinichen’s Neu erfundene und Gründliche Anweisung (Newly Invented and Foundational Instruction) of 1711, it would seem Stölzel was probably influenced by Heinichen’s emphasis on scale degrees within the major/minor system. Thus, although Stölzel is traditional in his focus on the trias harmonica, he is also progressive in embracing major/minor keys. As far as I know, Stölzel’s method is unique in that he begins by having pupils compose their own chorale melody. This raises the question of whether today’s pedagogues may also wish to preface their instruction on chorale harmonization with a brief discussion of melodic composition. Stölzel’s three rules for composing original chorale melodies are as follows (presumably with a preliminary choice of either a major or minor key):

1. The melody may begin with $\hat{1}$, $\hat{3}$, or $\hat{5}$.
2. The melody must end with $\hat{1}$.
3. Mostly move by step, sometimes by third or fourth, and very rarely larger than a fourth (ca. 1719–49, 2v–3r).

[2.2] Additionally, Stölzel writes that in order to compose a chorale melody, the pupil must know that major keys modulate normally to iii, V, and vi (unusually to ii and IV), while minor keys modulate normally to III and v (unusually to VII, iv, and very seldom to VI). This information is taken directly from Heinichen’s 1711 treatise and is the only instance where Stölzel cites another work.⁽¹²⁾ Equipped with this knowledge, the pupil is to compose an original melody, presumably to a pre-existing text, which could be borrowed from another chorale. The text determines the phrase length of each line if we assume a purely syllabic setting, as is the case in most chorales. Stölzel’s original chorale melody to the text “Jesus meine Zuversicht” is shown in Example 2. Annotations reflect Stölzel’s own analysis of the modulations and scale degrees. Presumably, the means by which one tonicizes the above-mentioned neighboring keys is to have the chorale phrase end on scale-degree one of that key.

[2.3] What follows is to my knowledge the earliest systematic description of how to invent a bass line to a given chorale melody. Stölzel defines default intervals—3, 5, or 8—that should be added below each scale degree as the bass line. These intervals are determined via the trias harmonica. He also allows for alternate intervals. The rule is that those degrees that have a default 5 have an alternate 8 and vice versa. Example 3 is my summary of these rules in notation. In brief, all melodic degrees may take 5 or 8 below them, except for $\hat{3}$, $\hat{6}$, and $\hat{7}$, which always take 3 (actually a tenth in context). Stölzel makes no note of the fact that the fifth below $\hat{4}$ is a diminished fifth.⁽¹³⁾ In this portion of his treatise, he treats the diminished fifth as a consonance, which is a point of difference between Stölzel and Heinichen, who, while admitting that the diminished fifth may enter unprepared, emphasizes that it is nevertheless a dissonance because it still requires resolution (Heinichen 1728, 107).

[2.4] Using the above prescriptions, Stölzel produces the bass line shown in Example 4. Oddly enough, he prohibits consecutive harmonic intervals of all kinds, even parallel thirds (the exception being the consecutives arising through repeated notes) (ca. 1719–49, 5r). But later in his treatise, when discussing the use of the interval of the sixth, he allows for parallel thirds and sixths (ca. 1719–49, 16v). Stölzel also says that the first note of phrase three must take 5 below it to prevent parallel octaves with the last tone of phrase two (ca. 1719–49, 6v). That is, the rules of counterpoint still apply between phrase boundaries. Finally, he advises that $\hat{3}$, $\hat{6}$, and $\hat{7}$ are particularly suited for changing keys (ca. 1719–49, 7r). Presumably Stölzel means that these degrees should be taken as the first degree in the new key, as seen in the modulation to G major in phrase two and back to C major in phrase four (see Example 2).

[2.5] The next step is the “translation” of Arabic numerals into notation. This represents a crucial juncture in Stölzel’s method, for the compositional referent shifts from the upper voice to the bass line:

§. 11. In diesen unten gesezten Zahlen steken so wohl die Melodie als der Bass. dahero wir nun die obern fahren laßen, als welche uns hiemit ihre dienste völlig gethan haben, daß wir sie also weiter nicht nöthig haben. doch aber zu zeigen wie in denen erwehnten Zahlen die Melodie u‹nd› zugleich der Bass stekt, wird es nöthig seyn, dieselben in Noten vorzustellen (ca. 1719–49, 7v).

§. 11. The melody as well as the bass is hidden in the figures [in Example 4] in the lower row. Thus, we will now ignore the upper row as though their purpose had been served and we had no more use for them. But in order to show how the melody and the bass are hidden in the mentioned figures, it will be necessary to give them in notation.

[2.6] Example 5 shows Stölzel’s realization of this process of “translation.” Presumably, his comment that the melody is “hidden” in the figures refers to the fact that, after copying out the bass line, the figures can be used to reconstruct the melody. Next, he asks, “How is one to invent the middle voices, namely the alto and the tenor?”⁽¹⁴⁾ The significance of this question is that, like J. S. Bach’s method of teaching chorale composition, one first composes the bass line in its entirety before adding middle voices. Thus, the alto and tenor voices are methodologically and conceptually reliant on the bass, not the chorale melody. This can be seen in Stölzel’s above statement that one can now ignore the chorale’s scale degrees, “as though their purpose had been served.” That is to say, it would be pointless to make any inferences regarding the middle voices until the bass has been established. Thus from here on, the pupil’s attention is focused on the bass alone.

[2.7] The above-mentioned shift from chorale melody to bass line is significant because it makes the transition from intervallic thinking below a given upper voice to thoroughbass-oriented thinking above a bass line. For this reason, it should come as no surprise that C. P. E. Bach’s description of his father’s teaching (see note 8) contains the statement, “Next he taught them to invent their own basses.” To “harmonize” a melody in Bach’s thoroughbass-centered approach requires first establishing a bass line. Of course, thoroughbass theory is silent on how one would accomplish this, since thoroughbass practice assumes that the bass line is always predetermined. This is probably the reason that Stölzel turns to trias harmonica theory for this pivotal first step of inventing the bass. From here on, he reckons consonance and dissonance from the bass upwards, as in thoroughbass practice (though he treats the diminished fifth as a consonance for now).

[2.8] Next, Stölzel says that the “secret” to inventing the alto and tenor lies in the three chords shown in Example 6, which represent thoroughbass figures of the trias harmonica in four voices in close position. One takes the chorale melody’s vertical intervals given in Example 5 and matches each one to the highest interval in one of the three chords in Example 6. The remaining figures form the alto and tenor voices in close position below the melody. This will result in a trias harmonica with doubled bass and the upper three voices in close position. See Example 7a for Stölzel’s example of how this is done; Example 7b shows Stölzel’s translation of these figures into staff notation.

[2.9] Stölzel advises that such a bare setting is in need of embellishment:

§. 14. dieses ist also eine Composition à 4 über das lied [“]Jesus meine Zuversicht[”]. welche nach denen regulis harmoniæ nicht zu tadeln, und durch angewendete transitus u‹nd› andere figuren hin u‹nd› wieder agreable zu machen ist. Und dergleichen sind auß diesen gegebenen wenigen principiis unzehlig zu machen (ca. 1719–49, 9v).

§. 14. This is a four-voice composition on the [original melody to the] chorale, “Jesus meine Zuversicht.” It is proper according to the rules of harmony, [yet] can be made more pleasing through the addition of transitus [passing notes] and other figures. Such figures, which are derived from these few principles, are innumerable.

Precisely which “principles” Stölzel is referring to is unclear. Presumably he means the method just described, by which he derived the bass line and the inner voices using the intervals of the trias harmonica.

[2.10] Next, Stölzel shows how the upper voices can be swapped, as seen in Example 8. That Stölzel emphasizes this technique is likely the influence of Heinichen. In both his 1711 and his 1728 treatises, Heinichen gives many of the thoroughbass examples in all three starting positions. A position refers to the starting interval between the outer voices: either an octave, third, or fifth (assuming the first harmony is a 8/5/3 chord). The most interesting thing about Example 8 is that, even when the diminished fifth is present in the outer voices (see the pointing hand in Example 8b), Stölzel does not resolve it inward to a third. This likely results from a desire to simplify his method for beginners, since Stölzel is certainly aware that the diminished fifth is a dissonance.⁽¹⁵⁾

[2.11] Thus far, Stölzel’s approach has limited the pupil exclusively to 8/5/3 chords. In contradiction to the title of the treatise (which claims that sixths will be excluded), he next introduces how to use the sixth. This is governed by the following rules:

[1] N.B. wenn in denen Mittel-Parthien ein hemitonium so per gradum steiget vorkömt, kan solches in den Bass gesezet u‹nd› der Bass-Sonus an deßen Stelle in die Mittel Parthie gesezet werden. So hat man den ersten Gebrauch der Sexten. oder kürzen wenn der andere u‹nd› fünffte Thon die Qvinte mit der 3. majori unter sich haben[.]

[2] Nb wenn statt der natürlichen hemitoniorum die Melodie p‹er› tonum steiget, zum Exempel e fis, oder h cis hat unter dem fis u‹nd› cis die sexte statt.

[3] Nb wenn die Melodie in einem tone liegen bleibt, und der Bass auß der octave per tertiam steigt kan die lezte Note die Sextam haben.

[4] Nb wenn die Melodie per hemitonium steiget hat bey der ersten Note die 6te statt.

[5] Nb wenn die Melodie auß dem Fundament-Thon umb ein hemitonium fält, gleich aber wieder in den Fundament Thon gehet, kan der mittelste die Sexte haben.

[6] Es können alle 7 tone die Sexte [m]it 3. verimdtelt[??] haben. so wohl ascendendo als descendendo nach ein ander haben (ca. 1719–49, 15v–16r).

~ ~ ~

[1] N.B. When an ascending [chromatic] semitone appears in the middle parts, this can be set in the bass and the bass note can be set where the middle voice was [the two can be inverted]. In this way one achieves the first use of the sixth [when a third is inverted]. Or, put briefly, when the second and fifth degrees have a fifth below them and a major third above this fifth [then the third can be placed in the bass].

[2] N.B. When the melody ascends by whole tone instead of by diatonic semitone, e.g. e–f♯ or b–c♯, then the f♯ and c♯ have a sixth below them.

[3] N.B. When the melody repeats a tone and the bass ascends by third from the octave [below this melody tone], the last [bass] note can [sic will] have the sixth.

[4] N.B. When the melody ascends by semitone, the first note has a sixth [below it].

[5] N.B. When the melody descends by semitone from the first degree and immediately returns to the first degree, the middle note can have the sixth.

[6] All seven degrees may have the sixth [below them] with third [above this bass note] consecutively, both ascending and descending.

[2.12] Following this, Stölzel introduces the concepts of transitus regularis (unaccented passing) and transitus irregularis (accented passing), which always occur between the interval of a third (ca. 1719–49, 16v). The remainder of the treatise (folios 17r to 34r) explains the use of syncopatio dissonances, or what Stölzel calls ligatur. Both syncopatio and ligatur are historical terms for a suspension, but with important differences. Whereas a suspension implies the delayed arrival of a chord tone, both syncopatio and ligatur were understood dyadically as an intervallic, rather than a chordal, phenomenon. Stölzel systematically describes syncopatio dissonances for the intervals 2, 5, 7, and 9 in the discant, alto, tenor, and bass voices with different types of auxiliary voices and resolutions. When the tied voice is on top, one speaks of supersyncopatio; when it is in the bass, one speaks of subsyncopatio.⁽¹⁶⁾ Though Stölzel no longer discusses chorale melodies in his treatise, the implication is that the instruction on syncopatio dissonances represents the above-mentioned “innumerable” figures, which are to be applied to the settings in Examples 7 and 8. Overall, Stölzel’s entire description of syncopatio dissonances is valuable for the modern reader, as it demonstrates the traditional, seventeenth-century manner of understanding dissonance as a dyadic, rather than a harmonic, event.

Systematic Exploration of Stölzel’s Method

[3.1] I would like to return to Example 3 since, as stated already, it represents the earliest systematic explanation of how to compose a bass line to a chorale melody. It may have already occurred to the reader that there are not that many possible progressions. With this in mind, I set out to answer the question: How do Stölzel’s available bass intervals interact with the available progressions of the tabula tradition? What piqued my curiosity in particular was Stölzel’s restriction that the pupil’s original chorale melodies not make melodic leaps larger than a fourth—the underlying logic of two tabulae also applies up to the interval of a fourth; at the fifth, intervallic pattern reverses, as shown in Example 1.

[3.2] Example 9 catalogues all available two-voice progressions in a major key, modeled in C major. Each staff shows the six available melodic progressions of the chorale (by second, third, or fourth), either ascending or descending. Repeated notes in the chorale were not considered. The middle staff begins with Stölzel’s “default” interval as shown in Example 3; the third staff begins with his “alternate” interval. Diamond-shaped noteheads represent invalid progressions based on the following principles:

• parallel 5–5 and 8–8 progressions are not allowed;
• contrary 5–5 and 8–8 progressions are allowed;
• similar motion to 5 or 8 is allowed when one voice moves by step;⁽¹⁷⁾
• no melodic diminished 5 or augmented 4 is allowed in either voice;
• an outer-voice diminished 5 need not resolve in any particular way (see Example 8).

[3.3] I decided to allow for cross relations (i.e., augmented or diminished intervals between consecutive notes in opposite voices). While these would normally be prohibited in a strict two-voice setting, it is assumed that two middle voices will eventually be added, resulting in a four-voice setting. A fuller texture helps ameliorate cross relations.

[3.4] I analyzed each of the resulting valid progressions in Example 9 according to whether they fit the naturalis intervallic pattern or the necessitatis intervallic pattern given in Example 1 for ascending and descending motion. An arrow with a solid line indicates the naturalis pattern, a dashed line the necessitatis pattern. The motivation was the hypothesis that Stölzel’s method may be based on a sort of “tabula for chorales.” I expected to find some correlation between Stölzel’s method and the tabulae patterns, but they seem not to correlate. Still, the exercise was not in vain. It is interesting to see that, of 102 possible progressions, only 84 are valid according to the above proscriptions. (Only 80 would be valid if we added Stölzel’s prohibition of identical consecutive intervals of all kinds.) That is, Stölzel’s method as shown in Example 3 is not an absolute guarantee that the resulting bass line will be valid, if we assume the above-mentioned conditions.

Sample Chorales Harmonized with Stölzel’s Method

[4.1] In this section, we examine two chorales that I harmonized using Stölzel’s method. The goal is to model the application of Stölzel’s method for use in today’s classroom. The first setting, shown in Example 10, uses the chorale “Gott des Himmels und der Erde” (Zahn [1889–93] 1963, 2:460). Like Stölzel, I began by analyzing the scale degrees of the chorale melody, without any concern for common tones between keys. Inferring from Stölzel’s instruction, I took the ends of all phrases to be $\hat{1}$ in their respective keys. Measures 5–6 posed a problem, since $\hat{6}$ and $\hat{7}$ in the chorale both take a third (or tenth) in Stölzel’s method, which could create parallel fifths and octaves after the middle voices are added. So for the F♯ in the chorale melody, I used a 6/3 chord, which Stölzel allows for in his rules for using the sixth whenever the chorale melody ascends by half step (see above). When this passage returns in m. 13, I chose to interpret these melody tones in the key of E minor to avoid the issue and to create variety. The repeated notes in the chorale in m. 9 can also take a 6/3 chord, as Stölzel mentions in the same section just referenced. After composing the bass line, I added middle voices in accordance with Stölzel’s method—all 5/3 chords with the upper three voices in close position (except the 6/3 chords). Only the consecutive 5-8 progression between mm. 2–3 is a potential part-writing error. On the other hand, this can also be viewed as a change of position within the same harmony, which is why I allowed it.

[4.2] Example 11 is a setting of the chorale “Herr Gott, dich loben alle wir” (Zahn [1889–93] 1963, 1:134). Here I followed the same working strategy as in the previous example. The third phrase avoids a cadence in G major by interpreting the cadence in E minor. As in Example 10, the outer-voice consecutive perfect intervals in contrary motion (here 8–8) straddling mm. 3–4 were allowed.

[4.3] Neither Example 10 nor Example 11 are particularly brilliant. The bass lines are at times what G. P. Telemann referred to as a “timpani harmony” (Pauken-Harmonie) (1730, 183). Nevertheless, the settings are competent and thus represent an excellent starting point for beginners. Note especially that the resulting setting is quite different from J. S. Bach’s highly ornate, vocal Choralgesänge, which are very often held up as historically informed models. Stölzel’s settings—along with a whole host of recently surfaced sources—suggest that this type of simpler, keyboard-based chorale setting was actually the norm in the eighteenth-century, since it was organists who had to accompany chorale singing in the church service. By restricting the compositional possibilities to such a high degree, Stölzel offers a very practical method that is easy to implement. Further, it can be incrementally expanded by allowing for more exceptions, like 6/3 chords, chromaticism, and transitus and syncopatio dissonances. Stölzel’s treatise thus offers a method of chorale harmonization that is at once historically rooted and practicable. Such incorporation of historical teaching methods into present-day curricula offers a promising path forward for pedagogues who wish to continue teaching chorale harmonization.

Part Two

G. H. Stölzel’s Kurzer und gründlicher Unterricht (Brief and Thorough Instruction)

Editorial Principles

[5.1] The manuscript of Stölzel’s Kurzer und gründlicher Unterricht was deciphered with the help of Maria Richter, a professional transcriber of historical German texts (quellenlese.de). Her stated editorial principles, which I have adopted in the English translation as well, are as follows:

• no distinction is made between German and Latin words in the transcription, except when a section’s header is Latin, in which case it is given in italics;
• ‹…› indicates editorial completion of an incomplete word;
• «…» indicates original text added after the original text (i.e. as marginalia);
• […] indicates editorial additions, and in select occasions, a translation;
• {…} indicates missing text.

[5.2] Original folio numbers are given in the left-hand column in curved brackets thus: {2r}. In the tables that conclude the “Unterricht,” the translation is simply given in square brackets: […]. Struck text in the original is also struck in the reproduction. As in Part One, the translation in the right-hand column uses Arabic numerals with carets to indicate scale degrees. The relationship of neighboring keys to the main key is shown as a Roman numeral, even though this is not the case in the original: C(I), G(V), a(vi), etc.

[5.3] Stölzel’s rather odd and to my knowledge unique form of notation deserves mention. Often, he only gives the intervals of the three voices above the bass, without including the bass line. I have included editorial realizations for most of these examples. The trick to understanding this notation, I believe, is to use the syncopatio dissonances as a point of reference. As Stölzel notes, the syncopatio will be prepared by common tone and resolved down by step. From this one can infer the other voices. Lastly, it would seem that the treatise may have been compiled in a hurry, since, in a few instances, there are addenda referring to earlier paragraphs. This, together with various scratched out passages, suggest that the treatise was prepared only informally and was therefore perhaps used in private instruction. To this end, it remains uncertain whether the scribe is Stölzel himself or perhaps one of his pupils.

G. H. Stölzel’s Kurzer und gründlicher Unterricht (Brief and Thorough Instruction)

Transcription and Translation

Link to Facsimile

Derek Remeš
Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts
Arsenalstrasse 28a
6010 Kriens
Switzerland
derek.remes@hslu.ch

Works Cited

Bert, Siegmund. 2016. “Stölzel, Gottfried Heinrich.” MGG Online. https://www.mgg-online.com/mgg/stable/48705.

Buchner, Hans. 1974. Sämtliche Orgelwerke. Edited by Jost Harro Schmidt. 2 vols. Das Erbe deutscher Musik, vol. 54. H. Hitolff.

Burns, Lori. 1995. Bach’s Modal Chorales. Pendragon.

Campion, Thomas. (ca. 1612–14) 2003. A New Way of Making Fowre Parts in Counterpoint. Edited by Christopher R. Wilson. Ashgate.

Diergarten, Felix. 2017. “‘Aut propter devotionem, aut propter sonorositatem’: Compositional Design of Late Fifteenth-Century Elevation Motets in Perspective.” Journal of the Alamire Foundation 9: 61–88.

Hennenberg, F. 2001. “Stölzel [Stöltzel, Stözl], Gottfried Heinrich.” Grove Music Online. https://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000026841.

Heinichen, Johann David. (1711) 2012. Neu erfundene und Gründliche Anweisung. Translated by Benedikt Brillmayer and Casey Mongoven. Pendragon Press.

—————. 1728. Der General-Bass in der Composition. Christoph Matthai.

Herbst, Johann Andreas. 1643. Musica poëtica. Jeremiae Dümler.

Leaver, Robin A. and Derek Remeš. 2018. “J. S. Bach’s Chorale-Based Pedagogy: Origins and Continuity.” BACH: Journal of the Riemenschneider Bach Institute 48 (2) and 49 (1): 116–50.

Marshall, Robert L. 1970. “How J. S. Bach Composed Four-Part Chorales.” The Musical Quarterly 56: 198–220.

McCormick, Susan Rebecca. 2015.“Johann Christian Kittel and the Long Overlooked Multiple Bass Chorale Tradition.” PhD diss., Queen’s University Belfast.

Müller-Blattau, Josef, ed. (1963) 1973. Die Kompositionslehre Heinrich Schützens in der Fassung seines Schülers Christoph Bernhard. Kassel: Bärenreiter. Translated by Walther Hilse as “The Treatises of Christoph Bernhard.” In The Music Forum, vol. 3, edited by William J. Mitchell and Felix Salzer, 1–196. Columbia University Press.

Niedt, Friedrich Erhard. (1700–17) 1989. Musicalische Handleitung. 3 vols. Vol. 1 reissued 1710. Vol. 2 reissued in 1721, edited by Johann Mattheson. Vol. 3 published posthumously in 1717, edited by Mattheson. Translated as: F. E. Niedt, The Musical Guide Parts I–III (1700–21). Edited by Pamela Poulin and Irmgard Taylor. Oxford University Press.

Remeš, Derek. 2017a. “J. S. Bach’s Chorales: Reconstructing Eighteenth-Century German Figured-Bass Pedagogy in Light of a New Source.” Theory and Practice 42: 29–53.

—————. 2017b. “Chorales in J. S. Bach’s Pedagogy: Recasting the First-Year Undergraduate Music Theory Curriculum in Light of a New Source.” Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy 31: 65–92.

—————. 2018. “Teaching Figured-Bass with Keyboard Chorales and C. P. E. Bach’s Neue Melodien zu einigen Liedern des neuen Hamburgischen Gesangbuchs (1787).” BACH: Journal of the Riemenschneider Bach Institute 49 (2): 205–26.

Remeš, Derek, ed. 2019a. Realizing Thoroughbass Chorales in the Circle of J. S. Bach. 2 vols. Wayne Leupold Editions.

Remeš, Derek. 2019b. “Four Steps Toward Parnassus: Johann David Heinichen’s Method of Keyboard Improvisation as a Model of Baroque Compositional Pedagogy.” Eighteenth-Century Music 16 (2): 133–54.

—————. 2019c. “New Sources and Old Methods: Reconstructing the Theoretical Paratext of J. S. Bach’s Pedagogy.” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie. 16 (2): 51–94.

—————. 2019d. “Thoroughbass Pedagogy Near J. S. Bach: Translations of Four New Manuscript Sources.” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie. 16 (2): 95–165.

—————. 2020a. “Thoroughbass, Chorale, and Fugue: Teaching the Craft of Composition in J. S. Bach’s Circle.” PhD diss., Hochschule für Musik Freiburg (Germany).

—————. 2020b. “J. S. Bach and the Choralbuch Style of Harmonization: A New Pedagogical Paradigm.” In Rethinking Bach, edited by Bettina Varwig. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Forthcoming.

Sarath, Ed, David Myers, and Patricia Campbell. 2014. “Transforming Music Study from its Foundations: A Manifesto for Progressive Change in Undergraduate Preparation of Music Majors.” The College Music Society. https://www.music.org/pdf/pubs/tfumm/TFUMM.pdf.

Schonsleder, Wolfgang. (1631) 1684. Architectonice musices universalis. 2nd ed. Edler.

Schubert, Peter. 2018. “Thomas Campion’s ‘Chordal Counterpoint’ and Tallis’s Famous Forty-Part Motet.” Music Theory Online 24 (1). https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.18.24.1/mto.18.24.1.schubert.html

Stölzel, G. H. ca. 1719–49. Kurzer und gründlicher Unterricht. D-B, Mus.ms.theor. 839.

—————. 1725. Practischer Beweiß, wie aus einem […] Canone perpetuo […] viel und mancherley […] Canones perpetui à 4 zu machen seyn. D-B; Dr. o.O.

Telemann, G. P. 1730. Fast allgemeines Evangelisch-Musicalisches Lieder-Buch. Stromer.

Vogt, Florian. 2018. Die “Anleitung zur musikalischen Setzkunst” von Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel (1690–1749): Edition und Kommentar. Bockel Verlag.

Walther, Johann Gottfried. (1708) 1955. Praecepta der Musicalischen Composition. Edited by Peter Benary. Breitkopf & Härtel.

Werckmeister, Andreas. 1702. Harmonologia Musica oder Kurtze Anleitung Zur Musicalischen Composition. Calvisius.

Wiedeburg, Michael J. F. 1765–75. Der sich selbst informirende Clavierspieler. 3 vols. Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.

Wolff, Christoph, ed. 1998. The New Bach Reader. Norton.

Zahn, Johannes. (1889–93) 1963. Die Melodien der deutschen evangelischen Kirchenlieder aus den Quellen geschöpft und mitgeteilt. 6 vols. Olms.

Footnotes

1. The manifesto states that, “both the effectiveness of [four-part, Bach-style part writing] and the narrow horizons toward which it aims need to be carefully assessed from a contemporary, creative vantage point” (Sarath, Myers, and Campbell 2014, 12).
Return to text

2. For instance, there was a panel at the 2019 meeting of the Society for Music Theory titled “Corralling the Chorale: Moving Away From SATB Writing in the Undergraduate Music Theory Curriculum.”
Return to text

3. I have attempted this in Remeš 2017b.
Return to text

4. Earlier examples, like Hans Buchner’s early fifteenth-century description of how to compose a countertenor-bassus below a chant melody, must be excluded, since these methods belong to modal practice and do not involve a bass line in the modern sense (Buchner 1974, 1:17–27). See also Remeš 2020a, 203–210.
Return to text

5. Florian Vogt’s German-language edition of another one of Stölzel’s treatises, the Anleitung zur musikalischen Setzkunst, also includes an overview of folios 1–16 (i.e., about half) of the Kurzer und gründlicher Unterricht (Vogt 2018, 126–54). Vogt’s excellent work piqued my curiosity, such that I wanted to investigate the remainder of Stölzel’s treatise and make it available for English-speaking audiences in its entirety.
Return to text

6. See McCormick 2015, Leaver and Remeš 2018, and Remeš 2017a, 2018, 2019a, 2019c, 2019d, 2020a, and 2020b.
Return to text

7. See Remeš 2019c and 2020a for more on these connections to J. S. Bach.
Return to text

8. “In composition [J. S. Bach] started his pupils right in with what was practical, and omitted all the dry species of counterpoint that were given by Fux and others. His pupils had to begin their studies by learning pure four-part thoroughbass. From this he went to chorales; first he added the basses to them himself, and they had to invent the alto and tenor. Then he taught them to devise the basses [note the plural] themselves. He particularly insisted on the writing out of the thoroughbass in parts” (Wolff 1998, 399).
Return to text

9. “Kurzer und gründlicher Unterricht, wie ein Liebhaber der Music, welcher die Intervalla Musica kennet, und durch die Noten aufzuschreiben weiß, In einer kurzen Zeit, einen Contrapunctum Simplicem, doch ohne Sexten, mit vier Stim‹m›en zu sezen Erlernen kan.” See Part Two for a full translation of the title.
Return to text

10. See Walther [1708] 1955, 105, Herbst 1643, 36–37, Schonsleder [1631] 1684, 4–7, and Campion [ca. 1612–14] 2003. See also Schubert 2018 and Diergarten 2017.
Return to text

11. For instance, writing in 1728, Heinichen says that modes are not used anymore except by organists who prelude on older modal chorales (1728, 914). See also Burns 1995.
Return to text

12. Heinichen ([1711] 2012, 211–12), as quoted in Stölzel (ca. 1719–49, 2r). Note that Heinichen changed the modulatory options for minor keys in his 1728 treatise by promoting VII from an unusual key to a normative one (Heinichen 1728, 761).
Return to text

13. See Vogt (2018, 84–99) regarding diminished and augmented triads in the seventeenth-century trias harmonica tradition as they relate to Stölzel’s theories.
Return to text

14. “§. 12. Izo fragt sichs, wie nun die Mittel Stim‹m›e[n] als der Alt u‹nd› Tenor dazu zu erfinden seyn? Dieses Geheimniß aber liegt in folgenden dreyen Säzen vor Augen” (Stölzel ca. 1719–49, 8r–8v).
Return to text

15. For example, in his Practischer Beweiß (1725, §§.5–6), Stölzel, following trias harmonica theory, refers to the diminished triad as deficiens and “incomplete” [unvollkommen] and thus excludes it from his method of composing a canon.
Return to text

16. These terms do not appear in Stölzel’s treatise. Heinichen uses the synonyms sopra syncopata and sotta syncopata (Heinichen 1728, 171).
Return to text

17. J. G. Walther, for example, allows the progression 5–8 if either the upper or the lower voice move by step ([1708] 1955, 123).
Return to text

18. One reason Stölzel excludes sixths may be that sixths invert to sevenths in invertible counterpoint at the twelfth. Indeed, this is the reason Andreas Werckmeister excludes sixths in his list of “general rules,” which are supposedly a summary of the principles of Zarlino, Pontio, Tigrini, and Artusi (Walther 1702, 187). Nevertheless, Stölzel does actually treat the topic of the sixth beginning on {14v}.
Return to text

19. Stölzel apparently crossed paths with Heinichen while the two were in Venice (Bert 2016). Stölzel’s familiarity with Heinichen’s 1711 treatise may explain why Stölzel orients his method around the relatively new concept of scale degree in major and minor keys, a concept which is central to Heinichen’s theories. In Heinichen's later treatise (1728, 761), modulation from a minor key to VII is upgraded from “unusual” to “normal.”
Return to text

20. As noted in the introduction, to my knowledge Stölzel’s method is unique in that it does not treat a pre-existing chorale but has the student compose an original one.
Return to text

21. In contrast to many contemporary methods, Stölzel does not mention common tones in the context of modulation. Instead, he simply switches key from one note to the next. Similar conceptions of modulation as an instantaneous event can be found in Heinichen ([1711] 2012 and 1728) and Wiedeburg (1765, 3: 4–5). Precisely why Stölzel chose to modulate at this point remains unclear
Return to text

22. The example below clarifies that Stölzel mistakenly labeled the fifth degree as the eighth.
Return to text

23. In other words, all degrees may take a fifth or octave below them except $\hat{3}$, $\hat{6}$, and $\hat{7}$, which can only take a third below them.
Return to text

24. According to this rule, Stölzel prohibits parallel motion of all kinds, even of imperfect consonances.
Return to text

25. It is unclear why these degrees and not others are particularly suited to modulation. Presumably Stölzel means that these degrees are taken as the first note in the new key. See {15r–15v} for an addendum to §. 9.
Return to text

26. This is a crucial juncture in Stölzel's method, for here the bass voice supersedes the melody as the primary point of reference.
Return to text

27. A similar method of filling in the inner voices as close as possible to the chorale can be found in Telemann (1730, 181–88).
Return to text

28. Note that the second chord of the third phrase has a diminished triad. Stölzel makes no mention of this, but apparently considers it “proper according to the rules of harmony.” It is widely known that in the Baroque era, the diminished fifth was considered a mixed interval (quasi-consonant or quasi-dissonant, depending on the author), capable of entering without preparation and as acting as the resolution of another dissonance, but still required dissonance.”
Return to text

29. It is unclear what Stölzel means by “altering the cadence.” It may refer to the addition of a suspension in approaching the first degree, since he mentions clausulae in §. 19 below.]
Return to text

30. This technique of inverting the three upper voices has obvious similarities with Heinichen's method of teaching thoroughbass, wherein the student practices all exercises beginning in Griffnotation (“keyboard style”) beginning with the octave, third, and fifth in the highest voice.
Return to text

31. Clausulae are stereotypical melodic patterns used to build polyphonic cadences. See Remeš 2019c.
Return to text

32. The following tables treat the sixth in 6/3 and 6/5/3 chords, as well as in chords containing syncopatio dissonances, even though the title of the treatise says the sixth will not be treated.
Return to text

33. The above diagram is to be understood as thoroughbass figures above a given bass note. The absence of commentary suggests that Stölzel does not prefer any particular doubling of the 6/3 chord, at least for beginners.
Return to text

34. The editorial dotted lines suggest that the rule that “the bass must ascend and the melody descend” should only refer to the 6/5/3 chords and not the triads. This likely refers to the fact that the fifth—whether diminished or perfect—is treated as a dissonance in a 6/5 chord. Thus, the ‘melody’ (the top note of the fifth) must “resolve” down by step, while the bass moves up by step. See Heinichen (1728, 107). It is unclear why 3/6/5 is crossed out and then rewritten on the right side of the line.
Return to text

35. The top row of this table seems to imply a progression, wherein the vertical lines function as barlines. But this is illogical, since the bass pitches are undefined. Of course, one could infer a bass line if one assumes that the syncopatio dissonances must be prepared, but this seems unlikely. Instead, vertical columns seem to show doubling options for the various kinds of dissonances. Oddly, not all harmonies include a sixth, the supposed topic of this section. Notably, this table marks the first instance of the phrase “tied below” (unten gebunden), its analogue being “tied above” (oben gebunden). Both phrases refer to the location of the tied voice in the syncopatio: either in the bass or in an upper voice.
Return to text

36. It is not entirely clear what Stölzel means by this passage, but he seems to be referring to the need for chromatic pitches to move up by step.
Return to text

37. More generally, the term transitus encompasses the modern “passing” and “neighbor” tones. As Christoph Bernhard wrote, “Transitus ist erfunden worden, den unisonum oder Sprung der Tertie einer Stimme zu zieren” (Müller-Blattau [1963] 1973, 64). Yet, in Stölzel’s conception (see directly below), it refers only to the filling in of a third. Heinichen ([1711] 2012 and 1728) seems to concur with Stölzel (or Stölzel with Heinichen). Niedt ([1700–17] 1989, vol. 2), on the other hand, discusses passing tones more in terms of “interval variation,’ where even intervals larger than a third can be filled in by step.
Return to text

38. This is an important point. Unlike later conceptions of suspension as the delay of a chord tone, the older concept of syncopatio is primarily a two-voice event between agent and patient voices.
Return to text

39. Such descriptions are common in the seventeenth century. Instead of describing an intervallic quality as dissonant, Stölzel refers to a pitch as dissonant. This refers to the patient voice's need for stepwise resolution.
Return to text

40. This statement implies that, in advanced usages, a syncopatio may also occur with the dissonance on a weak beat, as often occurs in practice.
Return to text

41. Later on {26r}, Stölzel mentions the freedom for agent voices to move to a different note at the patient's resolution.
Return to text

42. That is, the fourth may occur with the upper voice tied. See §. 15. below regarding a tied lower-voice fourth.
Return to text

43. See {25r} for an addendum to this paragraph.
Return to text

44. This technique of grouping of throughbass figures as triads may be borrowed from Heinichen ([1711] 2012, 42–43 passim), which Stölzel cites earlier.
Return to text

45. While the 2-3 figures can be set in the bass, the 7-6 figures clearly cannot indicate subsyncopatio figures. Rather, they must indicate middle voices. An editorial realization is given below.
Return to text

46. The progression of the bass is ambiguous in m. 6, since there are no syncopatio dissonances from which one can infer the bass. Assuming that the syncopatio in m. 7 is prepared, it would appear Stölzel composed parallel fifths, which is surprising, since he explicitly bans them below.
Return to text

47. The [?] refers to crossed-out figures in the original, which are presumably to be understood as dashes as in the previous examples, where the voice simply remains held. Stölzel’s marking of “non vitium” presumably refers to the fact that direct octaves between the outer voices can be avoided via contrary motion.
Return to text

48. Since Stölzel never does address the issue of an agent voice that moves during the resolution of the patient, it would seem that the phrase “There is yet time” refers to his intention to return to this topic eventually. This may indicate that the treatise was transcribed orally and the transcriber wrote down this aside literally.
Return to text

49. This table of figures appears not to represent a progression, as before, but merely a listing of available dissonant harmonies that he intends to treat in the following pages.
Return to text

Copyright Statement

Copyright © 2020 by the Society for Music Theory. All rights reserved.

[1] Copyrights for individual items published in Music Theory Online (MTO) are held by their authors. Items appearing in MTO may be saved and stored in electronic or paper form, and may be shared among individuals for purposes of scholarly research or discussion, but may not be republished in any form, electronic or print, without prior, written permission from the author(s), and advance notification of the editors of MTO.

[2] Any redistributed form of items published in MTO must include the following information in a form appropriate to the medium in which the items are to appear:

This item appeared in Music Theory Online in [VOLUME #, ISSUE #] on [DAY/MONTH/YEAR]. It was authored by [FULL NAME, EMAIL ADDRESS], with whose written permission it is reprinted here.

[3] Libraries may archive issues of MTO in electronic or paper form for public access so long as each issue is stored in its entirety, and no access fee is charged. Exceptions to these requirements must be approved in writing by the editors of MTO, who will act in accordance with the decisions of the Society for Music Theory.

This document and all portions thereof are protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. Material contained herein may be copied and/or distributed for research purposes only.