KVR Audio

rbarata · Post by **rbarata** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:50 am

Hello my friends

I am a beginner in counterpoint studies. I'm studying Fux's "Gradus ad Parnassum", the English translation by Alfred Mann.

The main difficulty I'm having is to find exercises with solutions, i.e., most of them have solutions but in counterpoint, as you know, there are several correct answers for the same exercise.

I'm looking for something like a program or a something similar that can evaluate my answers. I know about "Counterpointer" by Ars Nova but I have to pay for it.

I also know that Sibelius has a plug-in that analyses first species but that's only that.

Anyone knows about any program or site that can help me in this?

Thank you

jlocri · Post by **jlocri** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:25 am

There are no solutions because they don't exist, there's no one way to perform part writing. As with all arts, it's open to interpretation and variance, this is true even for the strictest contrapuntal style. The idea is that after writing out your exercises, you actually use your ear (you know, big ugly things on your head, yeah, you can't miss them especially yours

) to find misuse of fifths and dissonance. You can generally hear things like parallel or direct fifths, since it has that sort of sterile/plain sound to it.

Don't look for programs to do it for you and don't approach counterpoint mechanically.

z.electric · Post by **z.electric** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:05 pm

sorry that this will not answer your question...but I gotta agree with jlocri.

In terms of tune writing, the single best way is to write your counterparts by ear. This can be time consuming. While simply applying a theoretical algorithm to the melody might "work" technically, it doesn't necessarily achieve the emotive texture that you're after.

Writing by ear takes more time, requires you to invest more energy in the song and will lead you up many more dead-end paths; but the likelihood that you will find something worthwhile is greater.

But you probably know all this already.

rbarata · Post by **rbarata** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:19 pm

In terms of tune writing, the single best way is to write your counterparts by ear. This can be time consuming. While simply applying a theoretical algorithm to the melody might "work" technically, it doesn't necessarily achieve the emotive texture that you're after.

Maybe I was not clear enough. The type of program I'm talking about (and those I know but don't own) allow you to freely input anything you want in the staff, even errors.

So, this means that you have the liberty to write things that sound good and can achieve all the emotions you want to convey.

The main purpose I'm going after is to have the possibility to confirm what I've done and point me the errors. All the rest is still there, the harmony (or lack of it), the emotions, etc.

asnor · Post by **asnor** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:11 am

you might try this: http://www.pnelsoncomposer.com/software/partwrite/

I haven't tried it, so I don't know how extensive it is, but it's free.

peppy197 · Post by **peppy197** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:59 pm

I always thought that it was easier, humanly feasible, to learn/review/ponder the "rules" of CP then to go it by ear... with them rules or steps in mind...or not.

There is no quick way to make a really great song from a programmed set of rules and sub-branching multi-choice steps.

You have to achieve your own "built-in-your-mind" abilities = WORK

If it aint Band-In-a-Box use Band-In-Your-Mind

Gamma-UT · Post by **Gamma-UT** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:10 pm

rbarata wrote:The type of program I'm talking about (and those I know but don't own) allow you to freely input anything you want in the staff, even errors.
So, this means that you have the liberty to write things that sound good and can achieve all the emotions you want to convey.

Not in Palestrina-style Species Counterpoint you're not.

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:13 pm

the errors according to Species can be quite restrictive. I think you're missing what 'errors' means here. what 'errors' are is going to owe to a certain practice, a style. Fux based his book on his observations about what Palestrina did in the 1500's. Not everybody agrees it's anything to do.

taking on counterpoint as a discipline is one thing, 'species' is a specific approach which are tied to history. it might be a useful discipline to someone... I never saw it. I lived with someone who had to have it and watched it closely. I'm glad I wasn't the one doing it.

And if you expect software to be your teacher you're barking up the wrong tree really.
You could have correctness but nothing that works as music, approaching it mechanically or like maths.
In this case to get a result that is Fux's idea of Palestrina's mechanisms. There are approaches which carry over to part writing in general that I think are useful to obtain clear part-writing but I think isolating Fux is far too dry and lacking in context.

Music study works better when we have a focused approach. Do you know why you're looking at this? Like a 'must do'?

rbarata · Post by **rbarata** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:47 am

I'm studying counterpoint because I always had a fascination about ancient composers and their technique. Also, I believe it will help me in my harmony studies. So, basically, I'm looking at this from with an historic view. I've seen already that many of the concepts of music theory have their origin in history and what the ancient people did. In fact, until I have noticed that, I had some difficulties to understand some of those concepts.

In my oppinion, saying that Fux's rules impose a limitation to the music making, it is not true, i.e., obviously these rules limit what you can do but saying that the result can hardly be considered musical it is not true. It only depends on the one who is doing the music.

About the sofware....I just want it to help memorizing the rules and nothing more. All the other work that is supposed to be done, the composing, the analysis, earing and evaluatiing the result it's still there. So, my intention is to use the software only in the initial stages of my studies.

tropicalontour · Post by **tropicalontour** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:19 am

I think there is a lot of value in studying and familiarizing yourself with these 500 hundred year old rules. Once you have mastered them, then you can move on to breaking the rules, but you have to start somewhere. I think the OP's question was an excellent one. I'm going to try out both pieces of software mentioned in the thread. If you can get nice results from them, all the better. If not, at least it's a practice pad in which to train your ears and see if you agree or disagree with Fux's rules. Who knows? Maybe the step after that is writing Beach Boys songs.

rbarata · Post by **rbarata** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:34 am

I think there is a lot of value in studying and familiarizing yourself with these 500 hundred year old rules. Once you have mastered them, then you can move on to breaking the rules, but you have to start somewhere.

Yes, that's what I think too. Once I tried to start from an even earlier stage, gregorian chants and neumes reading, but I believe Fux makes a kind of a resume of all the medieval rules (probably with some "upgrade").

From what I know, counterpoint suffered an evolution with later composers (Bach, Beethoven, etc) who used Fux's rules and "bent" them at some point. So, considering the term "counterpoint" I believe Fux is where it all started.

The software posted by a7 is a good one, small, no installation required and it does what is needed. Thanks.

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:51 pm

rbarata wrote:saying that the result can hardly be considered musical it is not true. It only depends on the one who is doing the music.

I'm not sure who said 'can hardly be considered musical'. I said or implied that following rules is no guarantee of a good result. "You could have" ≠ "can't have other than".

"see if you agree or disagree with Fux's rules."

I don't agree or disagree, they are rules defined to try and assure a particular kind of result. if that's your desired result, great. Other rules have been extrapolated from this and have been more useful to me than isolating Fux, is all.

my advice to you has to do with this: "to confirm what I've done and point me the errors." Some of the errors sound good and are only errors in that style of writing parts to plain song and won't extrapolate into music writing generally. I am just cautioning you against taking this level of abstraction outside of working with a teacher too much to heart. Mozart was made to study Fux at some point. With a teacher.

A teacher will give you exercises designed to teach this or that concept and guide you to an answer that is musically the most satisfying. It *could* be that none of the 'correct' answers are that.

tapper mike · Post by **tapper mike** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:27 pm

peppy197 wrote:

If it aint Band-In-a-Box use Band-In-Your-Mind

I've got a love hate thing going with biab. I use it 3 hours a day.
I can't tolerate the melody writer or the soloist writer. The first four measures are heaven the rest is piss poor. Great Motif lousy motific development. It will give you a good place to start if you have none. However the rest is up to you.

That being said it's always a springboard for new ideas. Slap together some chords pick a style and go. I'm also a sucker for it's piano "rhythm" accompanyment. Most days I'm happy just to "cop" the style.

rbarata · Post by **rbarata** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:25 pm

I'm not sure who said 'can hardly be considered musical'. I said or implied that following rules is no guarantee of a good result. "You could have" ≠ "can't have other than".

There was an imply but in one of your posts. Obviously there is the possibility to achieve a bad result....and vice-versa.

"see if you agree or disagree with Fux's rules."

I don't agree or disagree, they are rules defined to try and assure a particular kind of result. if that's your desired result, great. Other rules have been extrapolated from this and have been more useful to me than isolating Fux, is all.

Yes, this is what I think too. These are rules. If we look at them from the XXI century perspective, probably we would think of them as limitations but to study them we must use "16th century eyes". So, there is no place for agreement or disagreement. They are just rules.

my advice to you has to do with this: "to confirm what I've done and point me the errors." Some of the errors sound good and are only errors in that style of writing parts to plain song and won't extrapolate into music writing generally. I am just cautioning you against taking this level of abstraction outside of working with a teacher too much to heart. Mozart was made to study Fux at some point. With a teacher.

As I said before, I'm using the software just to detect things that are going against the rules and that I haven't noticed before. This means that I write my counterpoints but before submitting them to the software judgment, I analyse everything previously and if I think everything's ok, I will confirm it with the software. Obviously, sometimes, there are surprises.

A teacher will give you exercises designed to teach this or that concept and guide you to an answer that is musically the most satisfying. It *could* be that none of the 'correct' answers are that.

Well, I'm learning this all by myself. At the moment I don't have time or money to spend in lessons.

mattie · Post by **mattie** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:07 pm

this one will help you;
http://www.ars-nova.com/cp/
cheers

Counterpoint program