What is Counterpoint?

[jancivil]

I am fairly ignorant about any practice pre-JS Bach. When I had Form & Analysis (which wasn't a class, but writing analyses, a sort of dissertation thing), I handed in a detailed analysis of one suite by JS Bach BWV 996.

A whole lot of V-i or V-I in here, you know what I mean? A lot of arpeggi. Not exactly stumped by the content, looking at it as 'chord progressions'. On the other hand, a lot of walking bass...

Of course I have no idea what he was thinking at the time. You hear, and look at, say the prelude here. It appears there were *targets* harmonically; often enough elided, delayed, etc. I don't know if that just reveals my prejudice or not.

Me personally, not much of a harmonic thinker; I'm predisposed to linear thinking in music. But, all this 'dominant>tonic' action says: 'harmony' to me. Goal-oriented, you get what I mean?

[fmr]

I am fairly ignorant about any practice pre-JS Bach. When I had Form & Analysis (which wasn't a class, but writing analyses, a sort of dissertation thing), I handed in a detailed analysis of one suite by JS Bach BWV 996.

A whole lot of V-i or V-I in here, you know what I mean? A lot of arpeggi. Not exactly stumped by the content, looking at it as 'chord progressions'. On the other hand, a lot of walking bass...

Of course I have no idea what he was thinking at the time. You hear, and look at, say the prelude here. It appears there were *targets* harmonically; often enough elided, delayed, etc. I don't know if that just reveals my prejudice or not.

Me personally, not much of a harmonic thinker; I'm predisposed to linear thinking in music. But, all this 'dominant>tonic' action says: 'harmony' to me. Goal-oriented, you get what I mean?

Bach had a very strong harmonic and tonal feel. However, he also had a very strong feel for what we now call the "voicing". In spite of the strong harmonic basis of his music, he was always thinking polyphonic, even in the harpsichord and chamber music (his most "modern" compositions, in the meaning as the ones that were more in place with his era). The orchestral suites, as well as the Brandenburg concertos are good examples of this. And he is not so simplistic as you say, although, in the end, tonal music is nothing more than a journey from V to I. that sometimes takes longer and use some deviations - but will always lead there.

[Ogg Vorbis]

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.

I see how you're thinking, FMR. But my personal problem is the historical fact that we know of. And that is Mozart studied Fux and Hayden taught it. Hayden may have even taught Beethoven out of the gradus. There's no indication that Mozart, Hayden or Beethoven studied Rameau.

But I know a dead horse when I see one. Thank you everyone for the wonderful and enlightening discussion! I am grateful.

[beboop]

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...

If we can expand the question a little beyond the specifics of figured bass to how musicians perceived and parsed the structures we call triads, then yes, apparently some of them did. The transition from purely intervallic thinking into the system of chords with roots didn't happen all at once, it appears to have evolved over a century or so.

The structure that becomes the triad apparently dates back around the 14th century, and is recognized as sharing a common root with its inversions at the beginning of the 17th.

Rather than attempt to post a single authoritative link (pure folly) here's some terms to plug into Google (not necessarily all at once) --

"split fifth" zarlino "triad inversion" lippius rameau "root movement"

That should turn up enough to bring into question exactly who done it

So, anyway, it seems the notion of triads with roots, or something very like it, predates Fux's Gradus by more than a century, and doesn't originate with Rameau. Fux, however, doesn't use it -- while he calls the structure 1-3-5 "the harmonic triad", he doesn't recognize it as sharing a root with its inversions (see Gradus, Second Part, Chapter 1 -- that's page 71 in the current paperback edition, the first chapter on three-part writing).

That is in distinct contrast to the way a 'modern' theory text approaches harmony, starting immediately with the major/minor scale system, triads with roots, and harmonic motion in terms of root movement. I agree that's unfortunate, not because I see Rameau as the Great Satan, but because what Fux outlines is the foundation upon which subsequent theory rests. I don't see one as supplanting, but rather illuminating the other.

well what a great topic. I'd been curious about Fux a long time, finally bought it a year or so ago, fell in love with it, got busy with other stuff and neglected it. thanks for reminding me

[fmr]

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.

I see how you're thinking, FMR. But my personal problem is the historical fact that we know of. And that is Mozart studied Fux and Hayden taught it. Hayden may have even taught Beethoven out of the gradus. There's no indication that Mozart, Hayden or Beethoven studied Rameau.

But I know a dead horse when I see one. Thank you everyone for the wonderful and enlightening discussion! I am grateful.

Not a dead horse, by all means. I already agreed with you Ogg I know, and is a known fact for me that the great masters did study and practiced counterpoint. Just because they didn't used it in everyday compositions doesn't mean they were illiterate. Actually, Beethoven even wrote some fugues (one is the famous fugue that ended one of his last string quartets. And his Missa Solemnis has counterpoint passages. And, as we know, Rameau was very much dismissed by the germans ( and I think they are basically right in their criticism, although I concede that Rameus treaty was and still is very important).
So, I say again I very much agree with your approach. As we say around here, "knowledge is a light weight" (charm lost in translation though )

[Ogg Vorbis]

Thanks Fernando,

I think we agree on a lot. I should leave well enough alone, but there's still a gnawing question within me...

I know, and is a known fact for me that the great masters did study and practiced counterpoint.

Agreed.

And, as we know, Rameau was very much dismissed by the germans

Agreed.

So here's my problem.... what did Beethoven use to compose the Adagio movement to the Pathetique' sonata if not counterpoint and if not Rameauean "chord progression" theory?

[jancivil]

I am fairly ignorant about any practice pre-JS Bach. When I had Form & Analysis (which wasn't a class, but writing analyses, a sort of dissertation thing), I handed in a detailed analysis of one suite by JS Bach BWV 996.

A whole lot of V-i or V-I in here, you know what I mean? A lot of arpeggi. Not exactly stumped by the content, looking at it as 'chord progressions'. On the other hand, a lot of walking bass...

Of course I have no idea what he was thinking at the time. You hear, and look at, say the prelude here. It appears there were *targets* harmonically; often enough elided, delayed, etc. I don't know if that just reveals my prejudice or not.

Me personally, not much of a harmonic thinker; I'm predisposed to linear thinking in music. But, all this 'dominant>tonic' action says: 'harmony' to me. Goal-oriented, you get what I mean?

Bach had a very strong harmonic and tonal feel. However, he also had a very strong feel for what we now call the "voicing". In spite of the strong harmonic basis of his music, he was always thinking polyphonic, even in the harpsichord and chamber music (his most "modern" compositions, in the meaning as the ones that were more in place with his era). The orchestral suites, as well as the Brandenburg concertos are good examples of this. And he is not so simplistic as you say, although, in the end, tonal music is nothing more than a journey from V to I. that sometimes takes longer and use some deviations - but will always lead there.

I agree. It's a mix of horizontal, lines, and harmonic arrival points. And the ornamentation (hence the term baroque) is very crucial; the lines are more than just the plainsong, and the sum is more than the parts.