counterpoint - first species

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Ya don’t need it, so wtf? Your paintings live well without, while mine would suck greater than even now. It is just tools, fortunately there are enough for most of us.

[jancivil]

yeah, true

FTR I have never actually composed anything serialistically

my music is however a product of my training, it would be something altogether different otherwise

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

https://youtu.be/_qI1sxmbdRc
Fux' music is actually tonal here

Yes, he was a bridge between modal and tonal music. At his time, Palestrina was already so out of fashion and the tendencies of the classical era moved forward. He actually wanted to remain true to the older polyphony to some extent but had to compromise. Wonderful peace btw. Note the melodic minimalism in the beginning (sporadic in steps and small leaps). This is the one I am aiming at too in my example.

[Functional]

You're saying "the first three notes"... implying that there's more notes. Without knowing the other notes of the CF, we can't say why G is the correct answer. With just the three notes, Ab should be more than fine.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

You're saying "the first three notes"... implying that there's more notes. Without knowing the other notes of the CF, we can't say why G is the correct answer.

Except that we just did. He broke the third law of counterpoint and also made a non recommended leap of a 7th. The cadence was not the main problem, it was the move. He already agreed about the move at page 1. However, whether his sus4 (Ab) was in a cadence or not, it would require resolution at some point (since the key is Eb major). Read the thread.

In addition: If his exercise is about 1. Species only, he may probably not be allowed to use suspensions at all, because this is 4. Species exercises. Depends on how the teachers have put it up. Still this is secondary to the problem of his move.Thus there are plenty of reasons that G is the answer.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Later I tried to grok 'Modal Counterpoint" in the library but I grew weary fast.

While Fux had his ideals in his past, he compromised with the tendencies of the classical era. Here are some more explixit examples of modal counterpoint (Palestrina). Note that despite the complex polyphony it has this "dronish" character reaching back to both Gregorian chants and pagan drone music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdZ_7dFbl1A

It is very beautiful if not meditative in my ears. On old noisy tapes...hmm..who knows?

[jancivil]

Again, we didn't get to Palestrina. Two of three trimesters and we had a century or so to go to even get there. At this rate the class would be long gone before we got to Monteverdi. Then it was "Music Theory" and it might be reading from Neumes, it might be Messiaen isorhythm, it might be Elliot Carter to sight read metrical modulation. the History guy was a stick-in-the-mud. I also objected to Grout History of Western Music, which didn't even fit the class because we were focused on an era not particularly discussed therein, why have I bought this book (pushing euro hegemony lf) now.

One other kid made fun of 'Clemens, non papa!' (as though some guy denying paternity) and cracked me up so we were in the shit now. I hadn't made it to class one morning (8AM) and the prof calls me on the phone and suggests it would benefit us both if I quit even attending. Ok.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

There is no such thing as a bad student, only bad teachers. You were unlucky.

[jancivil]

I got what I came for there. I didn't plan on being put in an in-depth ancient history course, I was put in this one alongside the theory, because "Honors" courses, because of testing. I'd already had two years (concurrent though) so I was very prepared for more chromatic part-writing, essay questions on something I couldn't relate to at all is another story. There was absolutely zero co-ordination with the theory course. We did happen to touch on the practice of sight-singing those things, which is quite more interesting than listening to it.

[shugs]

Ok guys (and ladies)...In strict two part counterpoint I am coming across a term called 'cross relations' being a no-no. Is this an accurate statement : " A cross relation is when one part plays a note and the other part plays a chromatic half step above or below that note either in the same measure or in a measure immediately proceeding or following ?"

[Farnaby]

I think you are talking about 'false relations' which was often found in Renaissance polyphony, particularly with English composers. I don't see why it should be a no-no since it was in common practice.

[shugs]

no, the term is 'cross relations' in my text and seemingly is most likely to occur when closing the 'song' in a minor key when raising the 7th to create a leading tone. The definition above is what I made up so not sure if it is a good definition.

[shugs]

they might be the same thing : false= cross

[shugs]

I think my definition may be correct, but now I am wondering (in the key of C) if the lower voice sings a B whilst the upper voice sings a C in the next measure if that is a problem since the two notes are a half pitch apart

[Farnaby]

It almost certainly is - effectively the major and minor 3rds of a chord are sounded simultaneously or in close proximity. If you are a beginner with counterpoint you may want to leave this for now, but it is a rather beautiful effect when used sparingly. You will find good examples in the works of the English 'school' such as William Byrd.