What is Counterpoint?

[jancivil]

The way it looks in this text, I have to concur, 'confusing'.

With them roman numbers, it weren't too hard, in fact, it was just fun.

[alphabetgreen]

No, Roman numerals are okay, it was the numbers afterwards that were confusing.

The way I learnt is, for example, a passing 6/4 is:

I - Vc - Ib

In figured bass it's: I 5/3 - V 6/4 - I 6/3

Now tell me which way is more confusing!

Simon

[alphabetgreen]

And it gets worse:

V7d = V 5/4/2

[jancivil]

I don't see the problemo.

(when I did it, eons ago, we left out such as "5/3"; the 'I' in C with a C bass given tends to obviate those figures)

your example, I guess b is first inv, c is second inv., etc.
Seems simple enough, but the fact I learned the other way, means 'easier' to me.

we'd have seen simply: I, V 6/4, I 6


we called a seventh chord, 7th in the bass, a '2' chord, abbreviating; and teach would just indicate 'V 2'.

we did some improbably sophisticated things in that class using it.
In that sort of late-Wagner chromaticism, we'd see + signs and such-like to indicate just what the fvck gwyne on round here.

like a french 6th = "iv -5/+6"

[alphabetgreen]

like a french 6th = "iv -5/+6"

Are you serious? A French Augmented Sixth is F6.

In his book 'Harmony', I have a copy of Walter Piston's figured bass analysis of Wagner's 'Tristan' (not all of it), and it looks horrendous.

[jancivil]

well, that would be simpler, you bet, as far as it goes.

I wonder, though, in the context of part-writing (which is basically counterpoint-derived, in the context of this thread esp.), if seeing those indications does have some value.

IE: we'd be given a melody in one voice (generally not the bass).
just for instance, a (appoggiatura; we'd have to parse this out, in context) G# (to A), soprano voice, would have 'iv -5/6' as your harmony.
Now, if we're coming up with lines, and we're trying to make something sound good here, to my mind, that -5 has ramifications (it spells things out) that 'f6' (ie., a 'chord') doesn't get me to.

Capisce?


Anyway, the more I think of it, I am not seeing any disadvantage to this 'Rameau-stylee' modus operandi, contrapuntally speaking...

and, yes, in the first chromatic harmony course I ever took, the big thing WAS Piston book and Tristan.

[alphabetgreen]

I dunno, I guess you have to know the chords first. I just don't like the idea of transferring all those numbers in my head to the piano, when I can just see the name of the chord right in front of me. I admit, the ABC system would be useless for a continuo player. And, I also admit that I've digressed from the topic of couterpoint to the topic of harmony.

[mystran]

For figured bass (especially on keyboards) the numeral notations (6/4 and the like) for chords is kinda nice because you don't really need to care what's the root of the chord: just play the written bass note and notes 6 and 4 notes (on the scale) above it. If you're awful keyboards player (like I was at the time I had to study figured bass; I'm still awful but not quite that awful I hope) it makes life quite a bit easier.

Anyway, I don't know anything about Rameau (ok ok, I know my share of the usual harmonic theory crap), but talking about figured bass at least, you're not supposed to just play the chord, but you're kinda supposed to do some sort of voicing that respects these stupid rules about keeping common notes where they are, and trying to move stuff the other way than the bass, which generally tends to give you some sort of melody in each voice?

[jancivil]

Actually, I partially repudiate myself in that last post. In a style where triadic harmony isn't the goal, such as this 'renaissance' business, the roman numerals might be utterly beside the point.

A 'pure' counterpoint would need some other indication for a continuo or like function, that's clear.
For this 'later baroque'-era type of function, it seems to me a moot point, to include or omit this indication of root, 'inversion', since you get triads inevitably.

(And, I'm wondering if my teachers called 'figured bass' rather than the more historical 'thorough-bass', due to the fact we were in fact harmonizing, often enough 'figuring' the bass (+ tenor, alto or what-have-you), rather than filling in 'middle-top' FROM a *thorough-bass*.)

I only ever did this, over thirty years ago...
In actual composition, I never found an application of that kind of thought, working in the latter part of the 20th c forward.

[Ogg Vorbis]

(And, I'm wondering if my teachers called 'figured bass' rather than the more historical 'thorough-bass', due to the fact we were in fact harmonizing, often enough 'figuring' the bass (+ tenor, alto or what-have-you), rather than filling in 'middle-top' FROM a *thorough-bass*.)

I still think that there's a hard distinction between vertical (chord) analysis and figured bass. If you look at continuo parts, they are simply intervals above the bass (no chordal analysis, remember that came later).

How you perform figured bass is interesting too. It's a lost art, but I think when you realize a fig. bass, you create a river of voices and follow the voiceleading indicated (the numerals indicate both a VERTICAL and HORIZONTAL orientation!)

That's a function of fig. bass that's lost on most of us who follow lead sheets with chords. Most amateur rhythm section members just read the changes with no regard to connecting the harmonies with a flow of voices.

But I think the really hot players set up internal melodic voices that emphasize the tendency tones within the changes, so it's a kind of modern equivelent to a figured bass realization.

Ironically, the time it takes to learn harmony from Rameau and translate that knowledge into fluid, melodic playing and writing takes much LONGER than studying counterpoint.

[Ogg Vorbis]

For figured bass (especially on keyboards) the numeral notations (6/4 and the like) for chords is kinda nice because you don't really need to care what's the root of the chord: just play the written bass note and notes 6 and 4 notes (on the scale) above it. If you're awful keyboards player (like I was at the time I had to study figured bass; I'm still awful but not quite that awful I hope) it makes life quite a bit easier.

Anyway, I don't know anything about Rameau (ok ok, I know my share of the usual harmonic theory crap), but talking about figured bass at least, you're not supposed to just play the chord, but you're kinda supposed to do some sort of voicing that respects these stupid rules about keeping common notes where they are, and trying to move stuff the other way than the bass, which generally tends to give you some sort of melody in each voice?

That's a pretty accurate and thorough description of figured bass realization!

[jancivil]

(And, I'm wondering if my teachers called 'figured bass' rather than the more historical 'thorough-bass', due to the fact we were in fact harmonizing, often enough 'figuring' the bass (+ tenor, alto or what-have-you), rather than filling in 'middle-top' FROM a *thorough-bass*.)

I still think that there's a hard distinction between vertical (chord) analysis and figured bass. If you look at continuo parts, they are simply intervals above the bass (no chordal analysis, remember that came later).

How you perform figured bass is interesting too. It's a lost art, but I think when you realize a fig. bass, you create a river of voices and follow the voiceleading indicated (the numerals indicate both a VERTICAL and HORIZONTAL orientation!)

That's a function of fig. bass that's lost on most of us who follow lead sheets with chords. Most amateur rhythm section members just read the changes with no regard to connecting the harmonies with a flow of voices.

But I think the really hot players set up internal melodic voices that emphasize the tendency tones within the changes, so it's a kind of modern equivelent to a figured bass realization.

Ironically, the time it takes to learn harmony from Rameau and translate that knowledge into fluid, melodic playing and writing takes much LONGER than studying counterpoint.

I mostly agree with you. That's why I didn't like the 'f6' or all that, it just tells me what chord (even assuming that shorthand certainly indicates the position/inversion).

My argument with you is only that, in common practice, after a certain historical moment, whether or no a chord is indicated with the voice-leading 'figured', I see as a moot point; as those chords tend to be an accurate description of the vertical result, which I can't see intrudes upon the horizontal action at all. Hence, I cited an 'authority' of the early 18th c. who gets into triads right away. "Chordal analysis" appears, surely, to be implied here.


NB: I was playing 'fluidly melodic' before I ever saw any of these historical modes of operation, just not in any of these historical styles. I was lucky enough to forgo that pain of thought you described earlier, per 'how did x arrive at _?'.
So, when it came time to part-write, my voice-leading in a chord progression sounded just like real music, right off the bat.

[VicDiesel]

I still think that there's a hard distinction between vertical (chord) analysis and figured bass. If you look at continuo parts, they are simply intervals above the bass (no chordal analysis, remember that came later).

While I agree that a bunch of figures is a bunch of intervals, not a chord with the inversion indicated, the default position is that seeing the note 'x' means you play the major/minor chord on 'x' that belongs with the current scale. The figures are there to indicate deviations from the default. So I'd say that figured bass is still largely chordal.

How you perform figured bass is interesting too. It's a lost art, but I think when you realize a fig. bass, you create a river of voices and follow the voiceleading indicated (the numerals indicate both a VERTICAL and HORIZONTAL orientation!)

Again, kinda. Seeing a C and playing a C chord, followed by a B with 2/4/6 means that indeed there are voices continuing to play the c/e/g while another voice moves. However, those voices are not explicitly indicated. You have to infer that from seeing that, by going from c/e/g to b/c/e/g you can indeed let a few voices stay in place. However, those voices are not explicitly identified, and in fact the number of voices can change from one figured note to the next.

Victor.

[Ogg Vorbis]

While I agree that a bunch of figures is a bunch of intervals, not a chord with the inversion indicated, the default position is that seeing the note 'x' means you play the major/minor chord on 'x' that belongs with the current scale. The figures are there to indicate deviations from the default. So I'd say that figured bass is still largely chordal.

Yeah, I see what you mean, because often times you'll see a bass note with no figures on it. So a player would have to understand that you'd "fill in" some consonants there (i.e. a triad).

Now the question remains in my mind....did they think of that triad as a harmonic "unit" with a root and did they think of "progressions" of these units? I can't find any evidence of it and it's not self-evident to me yet...

[fmr]

While I agree that a bunch of figures is a bunch of intervals, not a chord with the inversion indicated, the default position is that seeing the note 'x' means you play the major/minor chord on 'x' that belongs with the current scale. The figures are there to indicate deviations from the default. So I'd say that figured bass is still largely chordal.

Yeah, I see what you mean, because often times you'll see a bass note with no figures on it. So a player would have to understand that you'd "fill in" some consonants there (i.e. a triad).

Now the question remains in my mind....did they think of that triad as a harmonic "unit" with a root and did they think of "progressions" of these units? I can't find any evidence of it and it's not self-evident to me yet...

My opinion, and I am repeating myself, is that figured bass (Basso Continuo) is what lead from contrapuntal (e.g. polyphonic) composition, to harmonic composition. And, as it usually happens in human history, the evolution didn't happen in jumps, but rather as a slow process that started way before Bach, and ended basically with his dead. A little after, we had Haydn and Mozart, and while Haydn still used figured bass in the beginning of his compositional life, him and Mozart, and all their contemporaries, were writing harmonically during the XVIIIth century.