What is Counterpoint?

[Rottweiler]

What is Counterpoint?

The expression "Counterpoint" comes from the classical music:
In every orchestra practise all the musicians don't play
all the time, some have to pause. In the boring time of the
pause they count the points on their score sheets. These are
called the "Counterpoints".

Seriously and short:

You probably mean a "Contrapoint". A "Contrapoint" is the
contrasting development of two independent melody voices.

lol mate! you know shit about it and you are pretending to be funny!

at elast you should google it before you give the smart guy!

contrapoint, ehh? thats lol!

[fmr]

That's very true. Although key signatures were not used tonally in Palestrina's day, one would often find a Bb in the 'key signature' to avoid the 'devil's interval' (Aug 4th). Because they weren't writing in keys, they would often start on the white notes, writing in modes, and if they strayed towards the Locrian mode, as they were wont to do, they would have to rely on the Bb flat to avoid this awkward interval.

To us tonal thinkers, their 'perfect cadence' was called 'the final' and would signify the key (mode) that the piece would end in. However, each voice had its own formula at the end of a piece (although composers would swap them around). Their final chord did not have a third either.

On the final, the Tenorisan notes would be 'ray' followed by 'doh' (moving a 2nd downwards as opposed to a 7th upwards). However, if the interval turned out to be just a semitone, it was apparent that the piece had ended in Phrygian mode (or Locrian mode with a Bb).

The Bassisan notes were written as 'soh' followed by 'doh', anchoring the 'dominant' and 'tonic' of the final mode.

The Altisan notes were 'soh' followed by 'soh', often tied to produce just one note.

The Cantisan (soprano) was the most complicated as it involved a suspension and would start half a note before the rest on 'doh' and change half a note after the others had started to 'tee' and then up to 'doh' on the final chord.
(note: no third).

I really hope that I've explained that clearly enough. I must say, this forum's great for allowing me to hark back to my university days when I was studying Renaissance analysis.

Very much true, although hard to explain. I only would like to point that modes didn't have names (like Locrian, phrygian, and son). That was something some scholar(s) did in the XIX/XX century, confusing them with greek modes (although they had nothing in common, whatsoevber).
There were four modes, named, quite simply I Mode, II Mode, III Mode and IV Mode. I Mode starts in D (authentic) or in A (plagal) and it was mainly this one that forced the B flat, to void the augmented fourth, as explained here. This mode also lead to the nowadays minor mode, when they started to raise the seventh in the cadences, to make it "sensible".
II Mode starts in E (authentic) and B (plagal). III Mode starts in F (authentic) and in C (plagal) and was the origin of the actual Major mode. IV Mode starts in G (authentic) and in D (plagal). How come that "scales" - modes are not scales, actually they are much more complex than scales, since a mode is a "mood", as it contains a complete way of being in itself - starting in two different notes notes may be related, you may ask.
Because they are interrelated, and one can move from the authentic to the plagal without any preparation, while modulating (changing mode) demanded always preparation, and is very rare, since modulating would imply change the mood of the chant. Also, no matter if your melody is more in the authentic or in the plagal, the "finalis" (end note) is always the note of the authentic mode. I could write pages about modes and all the modal system, and would probably start another discussion, but counterpoint is the main subject here.
Backing into the two main theorists quoted here, I have to say that neither Fux created the counterpoint (he just wrote very comprehensive treaty about it, that even nowadays serves as the basis of counterpoint teaching, nor did Rasmeau created functional harmony. Fux classified counterpoint in five species, but in the real world you will only find the fifth kind (flourished counterpoint), although in the Middle Ages things started with the first kind, then the secomnd kind (but I never saw the third kind and much less the fourth kind, which I always regarded as technical training).
Likewise, harmony was a slowly evolving process that started with the "faux bourdon" and the "accidents" the musicians started to sing (first without even being noted, later notated already by the composers above the notes), mainly in final cadences, but also to avoid occurring dissonances as the AM augmented fourth. Rameau just picked what was already somehow a common practice and wrote a treaty about it. But what was, IMO, the main reason for the triumph of harmony and accompanied melody was the triumph of the opera, that started in Italy, and spreaded all over Europe during the Baroque. This was the main reason why polyphonic compositions disappeared (except on the religious and liturgic music) and accompanied melody and BC (Basso Continuo) took the lead role.

[alphabetgreen]

What you say about Fux and Rameau is also true of Schoenberg. Everybody (well, not everybody obviously) seems to think that he invented atonality, but this isn't true. Composers were already composing without key. He just formulated the 12-tone method in order to isolate it and present a system whereby it was impossible to write tonally.

Sorry about the digression. Had to put that in.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Rameau just picked what was already somehow a common practice and wrote a treaty about it.

Nyet! Rameau was a completely original and new way of looking at theory. He certainly did not codify a theory that was in common practice!

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97 ... h_kep.html

In fact, the German composers up through the 19th centuries and beginning of the 20th seemed to completely ignore or outright dismiss him.

It wasn't until well into the 20th century that Rameau had his day. By then, KVR techno composers began to assume that counterpoint went to the grave with Bach.

[nuffink]

Rameau just picked what was already somehow a common practice and wrote a treaty about it.

Nyet! Rameau was a completely original and new way of looking at theory. He certainly did not codify a theory that was in common practice!

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97 ... h_kep.html

In fact, the German composers up through the 19th centuries and beginning of the 20th seemed to completely ignore or outright dismiss him.

It wasn't until well into the 20th century that Rameau had his day. By then, KVR techno composers began to assume that counterpoint went to the grave with Bach.

You've lost me now. That link is to a piece of reactionary rubbish.

[jancivil]

I'm pretty sure the link was to illustrate a school of thought, a German one, and to what extent it dismisses Rameau.

[Ogg Vorbis]

From the link I wanted to point out the quotes from Shumann and Chopin, etc. that unambiguously criticize chord-progession based theory approaches. This ought to provide sufficient grounds to show that Rameau's theory wasn't the mainstream thinking in the 18th and 19th century.

I chide pop composers but on the other hand, I am one too since I write film music (and film music is full of rock and pop-oriented styles).

My point is not to put down pop musicians or pop music, but rather to illustrate the relevance of counterpoint in modern music (including jazz and pop) and thus in modern music education.

Even in heavily dissonant sonorous environments, it has proven its relevance in Shoenberg, Stravinsky, Henze, Hindemith, Britten and Verese. I think it takes longer to learn than chords and chord progressions but the payoffs are worth it.

[Per Lichtman]

What you say about Fux and Rameau is also true of Schoenberg. Everybody (well, not everybody obviously) seems to think that he invented atonality, but this isn't true. Composers were already composing without key. He just formulated the 12-tone method in order to isolate it and present a system whereby it was impossible to write tonally.

Sorry about the digression. Had to put that in.

I feel it is also important to point out in his case, however, that he literally stopped composing for several years to develop a system for "atonal" composition because he felt that in moving to such extensive use of chromaticism, so far estranged from traditional theory, key and analysis that there was no longer a strong theoritical underpinning to the music.

The process of creating this system, which was different than the method by which other atonal composition took place at the time, was an intensely personal project. He worked on it in relative isolation and only took on students/apprentices upon the completion of the system. His earlier work is an entirely different style, an I would argue this is even true of "Pierot Lunaire".

Twelve-tone music is unique in that most musical theory is a reflection of compositional practice (somebody does it and over time it becomes common practice, gets written down, etc.) wheras the twelve-tone consisted of a (highly left brain) organizational system that came into being before any compositons that used it had been performed.

[fmr]

From the link I wanted to point out the quotes from Shumann and Chopin, etc. that unambiguously criticize chord-progession based theory approaches. This ought to provide sufficient grounds to show that Rameau's theory wasn't the mainstream thinking in the 18th and 19th century.

I chide pop composers but on the other hand, I am one too since I write film music (and film music is full of rock and pop-oriented styles).

My point is not to put down pop musicians or pop music, but rather to illustrate the relevance of counterpoint in modern music (including jazz and pop) and thus in modern music education.

Even in heavily dissonant sonorous environments, it has proven its relevance in Shoenberg, Stravinsky, Henze, Hindemith, Britten and Verese. I think it takes longer to learn than chords and chord progressions but the payoffs are worth it.

I am not dismissing Rameau (and you misunderstood me, if you concluded that). Noir did I dismiss Fux and the importance of "Gradus ad Parnassum" (although I maintain that counterpoint of first to fourth species is just a scholar technical exercise, like the scales and arpeggios we have to practice on the keyboard. Sometimes really painful, but necessary).
What I said is that, when Rameau wrote his treaty, italian composers like Corelli, Torelli, Frescobaldi, even Vivaldi, had already composed and printed their works. And the functional harmony was already the base of their work. In France, we already had Louis Couperin and Lully. In Germany, we already had Pachelbel and Buxtehude. The music of all these masters was already composed in tonal harmony, therefore, I think we can consider it was common practice when Rameau wrote his treaty.
Problem is people sometimes think that baroque and tonality started with Bach, when actually Bach work could be considered as outdated when he created it. Bach composed in a style that was considered "old" or "antique" already in his time. He was a great polyphonist in a time where polyphonic music was already abandoned, in favour of accompanied melody.
Anyway, Ogg, I agree basically with you in what concerns the importance of the horizontal dimension, as well as the study of counterpoint. The rest is just small details, where even great scholars sometimes disagree vehemently.

[alphabetgreen]

What you say about Fux and Rameau is also true of Schoenberg. Everybody (well, not everybody obviously) seems to think that he invented atonality, but this isn't true. Composers were already composing without key. He just formulated the 12-tone method in order to isolate it and present a system whereby it was impossible to write tonally.

Sorry about the digression. Had to put that in.

I feel it is also important to point out in his case, however, that he literally stopped composing for several years to develop a system for "atonal" composition because he felt that in moving to such extensive use of chromaticism, so far estranged from traditional theory, key and analysis that there was no longer a strong theoritical underpinning to the music.

The process of creating this system, which was different than the method by which other atonal composition took place at the time, was an intensely personal project. He worked on it in relative isolation and only took on students/apprentices upon the completion of the system. His earlier work is an entirely different style, an I would argue this is even true of "Pierot Lunaire".

Twelve-tone music is unique in that most musical theory is a reflection of compositional practice (somebody does it and over time it becomes common practice, gets written down, etc.) wheras the twelve-tone consisted of a (highly left brain) organizational system that came into being before any compositons that used it had been performed.

I'm not sure that he stopped composing. His '5 orchestral pieces' are non-tonal (without key) but they aren't yet atonal (12 tone/serial). And I believe he was immersed in formulating the serial system around this time. (I could be wrong though, granted).

[alphabetgreen]

"Problem is people sometimes think that baroque and tonality started with Bach, when actually Bach work could be considered as outdated when he created it. Bach composed in a style that was considered "old" or "antique" already in his time. He was a great polyphonist in a time where polyphonic music was already abandoned, in favour of accompanied melody."

I have no problem accepting that baroque and tonality didn't start with Bach. In fact, I know this isn't the case. However, although accompanied melody was the new style then (promoted by his son Carl Phillip Emmanuel, no less), he could hardly be called outdated because what Johanne was doing was new, and that was to take the flourishings and tonal ingenuity to the absolute limit so that it could not be improved upon. There is no better argued polyphony than the music of Johanne Sebastian Bach.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Problem is people sometimes think that baroque and tonality started with Bach, when actually Bach work could be considered as outdated when he created it. Bach composed in a style that was considered "old" or "antique" already in his time. He was a great polyphonist in a time where polyphonic music was already abandoned, in favour of accompanied melody.
Anyway, Ogg, I agree basically with you in what concerns the importance of the horizontal dimension, as well as the study of counterpoint. The rest is just small details, where even great scholars sometimes disagree vehemently.

Agreed! And whether or not vertical harmony with roots and progressions proliferated in Europe, we have it today. And I was thinking as I drove home that those developments actually helped spread the love of music because it spread the language of music to more people faster.

But if I ever have students, even if they're going to write house, trance, techno, electronica, minimalism, deep dish, whatever...I will still insist they go through the Gradus.

[alphabetgreen]

Having said that, although there is more freedom with the older horizontal style, as mentioned previously, I still find that counterpoint based on "vertical harmony with roots and progressions" sounds as if it has more purpose. This is because with vertical harmony also came barlines, and the strong beat/weak beat aspect corresponding with the primary chord/secondary chord aspect of counterpoint construction provided that said purpose.

[Klemperer]

I don't know if it is available in english, and I dunno too if cracks like nuffing, alphabetgreen or the master who started this thread, would need it, but I always thought I should read the book "counterpoint" by Diether de la Motte. It starts with music from about 1200 (Perotin), goes on to Dufay, Ockeghem and Isaac, has big chapters about de Prés, Palestrina, Bach, a shorter one about Heinrich Schütz, and ends with Strawinsky Schostakowitsch and Schönberg Berg Henze Webern and so on. He ends with Ligety (wrote the book in 1981), and the fun is, he gives so many many examples.

A musician once told me that was the best book he had read about counterpoint - but as far as a first check said it seems not to be translated... Well, just thought I'd mention it.

[herodotus]

I don't know if it is available in english, and I dunno too if cracks like nuffing, alphabetgreen or the master who started this thread, would need it, but I always thought I should read the book "counterpoint" by Diether de la Motte. It starts with music from about 1200 (Perotin), goes on to Dufay, Ockeghem and Isaac, has big chapters about de Prés, Palestrina, Bach, a shorter one about Heinrich Schütz, and ends with Strawinsky Schostakowitsch and Schönberg Berg Henze Webern and so on. He ends with Ligety (wrote the book in 1981), and the fun is, he gives so many many examples.

A musician once told me that was the best book he had read about counterpoint - but as far as a first check said it seems not to be translated... Well, just thought I'd mention it.

I would hate to disagree with Diether de la Motte, who is much more learned in these matters than I, but it is my opinion that what Josquin dePres, Ockeghem, and most of the great Flemish composers of that time were doing was something rather different than what is here understood as counterpoint. There was not much consciousness of what the germanic theoretical tradition calls the scale degree. Instead, a simpler, much less chromatic melodic tradition allowed for a looser sense of harmony, with a greater degree of freedom in terms of linear independence and interaction.

Ockeghem's Missa Prolationem, for an extreme yet not atypical example, contains all kinds of polymetric linear interaction, with the same parts being played in different 'time signatures' (which in mensural notation were called 'prolations').



This kind of thing is antithetical to the figured bass tradition in which counterpoint flourished.

Figured bass assumes a metrical structure of strong and weak beats that coordinates the different lines. All the lines have to have the same metrical structure as the bass because the bass dictates all of the other parts to a certain extent.

In a sense, what is usually called 'counterpoint' is a reconciliation of the traditions of imitative polyphony that flourished in the Flemish Renaissance (and came to a counter-reformational dead end in the relatively simple music of Palestrina) and the tradition of figured bass, which arose from the 'monodic' or homophonic world of early Italian opera (e.g. Peri, Monteverdi).