I've recently become completely enamored with Moondog (Louis Hardin) -- in particular, *Sax Pax for a Sax*.
After listening to this record over and over, I read an interview (http://www.furious.com/perfect/moondog.html) in which he says that that entire album is in accordance with the "basic rules" of counterpoint (which he describes as "his forte"). As if my mind weren't already blown . . . Elsewhere he famously refers to "mistakes" that Bach made with counterpoint (as if his own counterpoint rulebook is very strict indeed).
But my question is what did Moondog understand these rules to be? Obviously, *Dog Trot* doesn't have some strict *cantus firmus* underneath it (or does it?) -- he's not religiously following Fux. On the other hand, he says elsewhere that he spent about two thirds of his time analyzing and "correcting" the voice leading of his music -- which sounds to me like he's rooting out errant sevenths and fourths on top of his cantus firmi.
All of this sounds like Moondog's playbook was somewhere between Fux and truly free counterpoint (where it's perfectly fine to, say, land a dissonant note on the cantus).
Really, I just can't get over the fact that he can take "strict counterpoint" and make it sound almost like free jazz. The answer might be, "Well, he was a genius," but I'd love to know more about what Moondog was up to.
Question for Moondog lovers
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
engaged in producing a mythology of self as a form of marketing?
I saw this twice in a thread recently, 'strict counterpoint', with no definition. So your guess is as good as mine or anyone's that isn't privy to Moondog's definition.
I saw this twice in a thread recently, 'strict counterpoint', with no definition. So your guess is as good as mine or anyone's that isn't privy to Moondog's definition.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 79 posts since 5 Feb, 2015
Certainly, to a degree. But given that most composers of his time were way into atonality, I'm not sure that declaring yourself a musical reactionary was the best form of marketing.engaged in producing a mythology of self as a form of marketing?
Fair enough. And I suppose one could define "strict" to mean "you can only use fifths and thirds." But we have Fux (which is chock full of pretty tight rules about motion and intervals, and which has been held as pretty canonical for a few hundred years), and we have Moondog's scores, so I'm not sure the question is completely unanswerable.I saw this twice in a thread recently, 'strict counterpoint', with no definition. So your guess is as good as mine or anyone's that isn't privy to Moondog's definition.
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Well, I doubt anyone follows Fux strictly [even in Fux' time] and I doubt he does. I think you'd be 
to do that. "canonical"? Well, it's history, it has a place. I have zero interest in it myself as a practical matter. Those sort of principles evolved to suit later developments. Albeit stopping at a point, "common practice" and all.
"I'm not sure that declaring yourself a musical reactionary was the best form of marketing." - this reminds me of discussions over the years regarding people mistaking their reaction for an actual idea. It seems like an odd thing and maybe inchoate to harp on 'strict counterpoint' in this kind of milieu.
Maybe he likes that look, it's part of the myth. I think he wants to look like a kook basically. A contrarian?
I'm not being necessarily negative about that, I think a lot of us do things in service of presenting a personal myth/narrative.
to do that. "canonical"? Well, it's history, it has a place. I have zero interest in it myself as a practical matter. Those sort of principles evolved to suit later developments. Albeit stopping at a point, "common practice" and all."I'm not sure that declaring yourself a musical reactionary was the best form of marketing." - this reminds me of discussions over the years regarding people mistaking their reaction for an actual idea. It seems like an odd thing and maybe inchoate to harp on 'strict counterpoint' in this kind of milieu.
Maybe he likes that look, it's part of the myth. I think he wants to look like a kook basically. A contrarian?
I'm not being necessarily negative about that, I think a lot of us do things in service of presenting a personal myth/narrative.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 79 posts since 5 Feb, 2015
I'm not being necessarily negative about that, I think a lot of us do things in service of presenting a personal myth/narrative.
Sure. And honestly, if you're not doing that to *some* degree in the music biz, you're probably not seeing things clearly. And here, we're talking about a guy in a Viking helmet who (apparently) had an altar to Thor in his apartment. Crazy guy on the street who is actually a serious composer! There's a mythos for you . . .
But I really dig this guy's music, and when I listen to it, it does sound plausible that he's operating according to some tight set of counterpuntal "rules." It *might* be Fux's rules at heart, if we accept that Fux was laying out a pedagogy of voice leading (and not a process for composers). If Moondog was Joseph and he handed in "Bird's Lament," Aloysious probably would have beaten him with his baton. But that doesn't mean that Moondog doesn't avoid fourths and consecutive fifths (etc.) like the plague when he's writing something that at times sounds like big band with improvisational passages.
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
'correcting the voice leading of his compositions' retroactively...
Erik Satie went back to school to study counterpoint. I couldn't tell you specifically to what benefit, based in his music chronologically.
Erik Satie went back to school to study counterpoint. I couldn't tell you specifically to what benefit, based in his music chronologically.
