What's the difference between voice leading and counterpoint?

[IncarnateX]

What a pile of ass pulled shit ^^^^^
So now you suddenly know a lot more about the species and can add facts and standards ex nihilo though your starting point was this:

Parallel movements are not avoided, where did you get that?

From the first species.

Use no unisons except at the beginning or end.
Avoid parallel fifths or octaves between any two parts; and avoid "hidden" parallel fifths or octaves: that is, movement by similar motion to a perfect fifth or octave, unless one part (sometimes restricted to the higher of the parts) moves by step.
Avoid moving in parallel fourths. (In practice Palestrina and others frequently allowed themselves such progressions, especially if they do not involve the lowest of the parts.)
Avoid moving in parallel thirds or sixths for very long.

You know the other day I shit my pants in public too. I messed up the names of my church scales. Did not think I could be stoned enough to do this but I did and I was spanked for it. Now what did I do? Did I try to hide it by rubbing more shit all over the thread so people would not be able to see the wood for shitty trees? No I apologized for my errors and reformulated my points in the right semantics. The OP wrote that it had been helpful and my worst critic even supplied with some really good points in the same line as my corrected ones. What I think you are doing now is the exact opposite, so I will just leave it to people to judge for themselves.

As far as I go, I have practised counterpoint in my music the last three decades, so at the end of the day, people can scream and shout and get it as wrong as they like, does not change the fact that I have a very applied approach to this discipline and definitely is not that bad at it.

[fmr]

What a pile of ass pulled shit ^^^^^
So now you suddenly know a lot more about the species and can add facts ex nihilo though your starting point was this:

Parallel movements are not avoided, where did you get that?

From the first species.

Use no unisons except at the beginning or end.
Avoid parallel fifths or octaves between any two parts; and avoid "hidden" parallel fifths or octaves: that is, movement by similar motion to a perfect fifth or octave, unless one part (sometimes restricted to the higher of the parts) moves by step.
Avoid moving in parallel fourths. (In practice Palestrina and others frequently allowed themselves such progressions, especially if they do not involve the lowest of the parts.)
Avoid moving in parallel thirds or sixths for very long.

You know the other day I shit my pants in public too. I messed up the names of my church scales. Did not think I could be stoned enough to do this but I did and I was spanked for it. Now what did I do? Did I try to hide it by rubbing more shit all over the thread so people would not be able to see the wood for shitty trees? No I apologized for my errors and reformulated my points in the right semantics. The OP wrote that it had been helpful and my worst critic even supplied with some really good points in the same line as my corrected ones. What I think you are doing now is the exact opposite, so I will just leave it to people to judge for themselves.

As far as I go, I have practised counterpoint in my music the last three decades, so at the end of the day, people can scream and shout and get it as wrong as they like, does not change the fact that I have a very applied approach to this discipline and definitely is not that bad at it.

You are quoting what you posted yourself - I think you realize that... ???

I just wrote this:

Parallel movements are not avoided, where did you get that?

And I would wrote it again. If you are doing counterpoint with more than two voices (there is a reason why species exercizes are just one voice against CF) you don't have a way to avoid parallel movements between some voices. That's what I wrote. And I stand by it...

[IncarnateX]

You are quoting what you posted yourself - I think you realize that... ???

Yes, I am quoting the part in which you were taking with your pants down. In light of especially the first species and general spirit of counterpoint, such statements like “parallel movements are not avoided” thoroughly demonstrate that you have not gotten the hearth of it at all. Happy twisting but I think I have said and heard enough so I will leave the finale to you to give you that at least. No bad feelings from here. Thoughts are free.

[fmr]

You are quoting what you posted yourself - I think you realize that... ???

Yes, I am quoting the part in which you were taking with your pants down. In light of especially the first species and general spirit of counterpoint, such statements like “parallel movements are not avoided” thoroughly demonstrate that you have not gotten the hearth of it at all. Happy twisting but I think I have said and heard enough so I will leave the finale to you to give you that at least. No bad feelings from here. Thoughts are free.

Don't take my words. Take it from "Gradus ad Parnassum". You have it here: http://www.opus28.co.uk/Fux_Gradus.pdf

Look for the first exercize in page 29, and note the parallel movements in bars 4-5, 7-8 and 9-10

And this is first species with only two voices...

[IncarnateX]

Sweetie, as I have already said several times, every applied incidence of counterpoint is basically a compromise with strict counterpoint, so you can give me thousands of examples from different styles where counterpoint is compromised and mixed with plain principles of harmony and that would still not make counterpoint identical to parallel harmonisation. It is actually quite simple logic. Any combination of two entities cannot be said to be identical to one of them alone. You think you can define counterpoint by certain styles and authorities, but you can’t. It is a much more basic and shared principle of individual polyphonic life which is in play in almost every type of modern music from classical to goa trance.

[fmr]

Sweetie, as I have already said several times, every applied incidence of counterpoint is basically a compromise with strict counterpoint, so you can give me thousands of examples from different styles where counterpoint is compromised and mixed with plain principles of harmony and that would still not make counterpoint identical to parallel harmonisation.

Who is twisting things, then? I presented you with "the counterpoint bible", where you can read nothing about avoiding paralell movement, as you even have the very first example with three parallel movements. Nothing is compromised. It is as it is.

OK, I think I can rest my case now. I'll let the book speak for itself.

You can pick whatever source you want. I have the classical ones, the ones where everything else was based upon. And I never mentioned parallel harmonisation (whatever that means).

[IncarnateX]

Sweetie, as I have already said several times, every applied incidence of counterpoint is basically a compromise with strict counterpoint, so you can give me thousands of examples from different styles where counterpoint is compromised and mixed with plain principles of harmony and that would still not make counterpoint identical to parallel harmonisation.

Who is twisting things, then? I presented you with "the counterpoint bible", where you can read nothing about avoiding paralell movement, as you even have the very first example with three parallel movements. Nothing is compromised. It is as it is.

OK, I thing I can rest my case now. I'll let the book speak for itself.

There is no such thing as ONE bible and there are no highest authorities sweetie, only trends and a general spirit. Even strict counterpoint in form of the species are not a bible but an educational tool that solely is meant to help you giving voices individuality and to this purpose their strictness with regard to avoiding parallel movements and other rules are very effective, especially if you come from a lot of choral harmonization where only one melody is supported. But no one expect you to go out and use this knowledge in such strict forms thus you have varied styles that make more or less use of harmonisation as well.

[fmr]

There is no such thing as ONE bible and there are no highest authorities sweetie, only trends and a general spirit.

Of course not

Who are Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Hindemith, etc. to say such things about this book. They knew nothing, after all.

It's just a "trend" Only the authority of Mr. IncarnateX knows what's best.

[IncarnateX]

Yes they represent the trends of music of their time. Nothing wrong in that. They do not dictate anything unless you want to imitate them. What you learn from these is how they did things and you will find that they did it differently, so you can take none of them and make them more an authority than the other. However from a logical standpoint you can seperate those elements of their music that are mainly based on counterpoint from those based on harmonisation and formulate some general principles like the species though none of your authorities would use all rules at the same time in the same way. In that case you have a map, but the map is not the territory. If you want to make counterpoint like Bach, study his style and imitate it, if Debussy, study his style, but none of them is defining for counterpoint in general, you may as well say that harmony only applies to Bach and Mozart and not modern music in general.

[fmr]

WTF are you talking about?

I said that Bach studied the book (although, by the time it came out, Bach was already a master composer). Wolfgang Mozart was taught by his father by this book. Beethoven studied by this book. Haydn studied by this book. Schumman studied by this book. Hindemith studied by this book, recommended it, and even said that Fux was responsible for the evolution of musical composition. The names quoted are all BIG in Music History, and all of them developed their own style, despite having studied by the same book.

I'm not talking about compositional styles. I'm talking about the "counterpoint species" you have been talking about, and about who defined them, established the rules, and established the path followed by countless students of many generations. All the important works that came after on the subject are based on "Gradus ad Parnassum"

Don't twist the subject. I'm not saying that this the way music should be written, that this "dictates" anything. I'm saying that THIS IS THE BIBLE for someone interested in studying the basics of counterpoint (which is what has been discussed here).

[IncarnateX]

WTF are you talking about?

If you do not know by now, I am afraid you never will. So I will leave it at that and go counterpoint a Korg Karma auto varied arp theme to a probability based melody. Now THAT is a worthy challenge and much more exciting than this. To each, his own and take care, mate

And for public services: The rules of the species are not solely build upon Fux but Palestrina too so one may have rules that the other do not just in line with evrything else I said.

[pabloaldunate]

Good Lord please Incarnatex stop shaming yourself.

[IncarnateX]

Good Lord please Incarnatex stop shaming yourself.

Another expert entering the scene? And you are? A sockpuppet maybe or what is your game?

[pabloaldunate]

WTF are you talking about?

If you do not know by now, I am afraid you never will. So I will leave it at that and go counterpoint a Korg Karma auto varied arp theme to a probability based melody. Now THAT is a worthy challenge and much more exciting than this. To each, his own and take care, mate

And for public services: The rules of the species are not solely build upon Fux but Palestrina too so one may have rules that the other do not just in line with evrything else I said.

The differences between Palestrina (Modal) and Bach (Tonal) Counterpoint are pointed almost in every Counterpoint book.
And have almost nothing to do with themselves.
Why don’t you have humility to study from Masters, to recognize you don’t know nothing about the subject and to stop talking when you don’t know a thing. You are grown man, aren’t you?

[donkey tugger]

About 3.8 I think.