Can a self taught, rock musician, really make effective use of species counterpoint?

[Nickolovitch]

From what I've read elsewhere about "proper" counterpoint, it seems there are a set of mechanistic rules one can follow to derive useful counter lines/melodies from a starting point line called a Cantus Firmus.

I'd like to know more about this, starting with the Cantus Firmus. But only by a little bit at a time. A deluge of information simply wouldn't help at this stage.

I know there are rules and exercises (I'm not asking what they are here) and I know people are usually recommended to buy the Fux book or similar - or to get a teacher (I've never been able to even find one). But I'd like to just start off with a very specific question, as to what forms a Cantus Firmus can take (as I'm having problems conceptualising what it really is).
I read somewhere anything can be a Cantus Firmus, but I think another article said the cantus firmi were all predefined by Fux or whoever (which I can't really see the point of).
So is this the case, are they predefined whole note lines only? Or can you literally use anything? - Any old melodic phrase, in or from any old song or tune?

If you can roll your own so to speak, then does having uniform whole note values through out(as I've seen in Cantus Firmi examples elsewhere) have to be rigidly adhered to or can the rhythmic note length values of a cantus firmus be more flexible than that?

Thanks to anyone who might answer this.

[Ogg Vorbis]

can the rhythmic note length values of a cantus firmus be more flexible than that?

Thanks to anyone who might answer this.

To answer your quote above, it's not a "cantus flexus" it's a cantus firmus.

As someone who is a great fan of species counterpoint and has studied it in classrooms and on my own, I can take a stab at your questions.

First of all, forget the word "rules." Every self-taught musician refers to "rules" like they are going to get a fine if they cross voices or have parallel fifths in choral harmonization, etc.

The "rules" of theory are not rules at all, they are boundaries that are there to help you learn the fastest. There are some conventions in real music, sure...and it's good to be familiar with them, but the goal of music education is to get you to see how FLEXIBLE and elastic music is, not how rigidly one must follow the rules.

The idea of the cantus firmus is that it is of a limited range - usually about an octave or less. The movement is usually very natural for the human voice...like hymns. The reason for this is because that is the easiest to deal with when you apply several other voices to them.

You do not see awkward skips, like tritones or augmented 2nds, etc. and when there is a skip, there is generally answered with a stepwise movement, etc. This is simply to make things easier for you as a student.

As far as using all whole notes is concerned, the reason for this is because just now you are learning how to manage intervals between the voices and how to treat the voices you are adding. It helps you focus on just that to have all whole notes in the CF rather than having to think about changing rhythms, etc.

Plus, you are going to be applying one note of counterpoint to one note of the CF, then two notes of counterpoint to one note, etc. So it makes more sense to have only one note value going on in your CF.

I think that some of the CFs used in Fux are probably plain chant or hymns. The point is that they are unchanged (firm) so that you can have something to work against in your counterpoint. The "rules" of motion are artificial rules that are there to help you ultimately understand how to handle consonances, and how to prepare and resolve dissonance in a way that will give you the best musical "muscles."

When I was on the tennis team we ran "ladders" constantly. What this was was a drill where you would stand facing four tennis courts lengthwise and the coach would yell go and you would run and touch the first line and touch the starting line, run and touch the second line, and run back to touch the starting line, run and touch the third line, etc. and on and on and on until you made it to the last line and then you did the whole thing in reverse. It sucked REALLY BAD. It was brutal, tedious and seemingly pointless.

Until you got out in a match and could move easily in any direction you needed to quickly and without thinking...

Species counterpoint study with a cantus firmus is a lot like ladders. It might seem pointless and obsolete and you'd rather be jamming on a blues progression with hot chicks who think you are like Yngwie. But it makes music feel like a pliable and friendly material that you can mold in any shape you need.

(those girls probably have terrible diseases anyway.)

I would recommend that you get "The Study of Counterpoint" edited by Alfred Mann (this is the Fux Gradus ad Parnassum that Bach approved of, Haydn studied, Mozart studied, Beethoven learned from (with or without Haydn's help) and that Brahms learned from, etc. etc.

I'll offer to help you until you can find a proper teacher.

Just noticed you said you didn't want a deluge of information at this stage. Sorry 'bout that...

[Nystul]

It is important to differentiate betweeen theory exercises and creative application. You might learn about a scale by playing the tonic and then playing each ascending scale note in order for an octave or two. But you wouldn't want to play your solos using just that order of notes. Well, you probably shouldn't ask your bass player to play a "cantus firmus" provided by Fux. But if you learn the basic principles, you can apply them to your music as appropriate.

[Nickolovitch]

So simply following this set of rules like a handy formula or recipe (I didn't see rules as restrictions in this context) and applying them to a phrase out of one of my compositions for example wouldn't instantly give me a useable classical sounding part to have in the background?

I get the tennis analogy I think - and that seems to imply the answer's no.

Really I was just trying to ascertain that what could be applied to a cantus firmus could actually work for any kind of melodic line in any style of music that one might want to have decorated with something weaving around it with that sense of "rightness" that only classical flavourings seem to give.

awkward skips, like tritones or augmented 2nds, etc.

Just wondering what an augmented 2nd could be. Wouldn't that just be the same as a third?

and you'd rather be jamming on a blues progression

Not at all. That's why I'm here trying to find out about Counterpoint

with hot chicks who think you are like Yngwie.

Have you SEEN the state of Yngwie recently?? . None too many "hot chicks" around him these days

I'll offer to help you until you can find a proper teacher.

Careful I might take you up on that.




Thanks for the responses.



Do you know the Counterpointer software? If so, do you think that's worth getting? http://www.ars-nova.com/cp/

[DrawMusic]

Just wondering what an augmented 2nd could be. Wouldn't that just be the same as a third?

Yes it's the same distance (in the equal-tempered world). But the effect of playing the notes G-Ab-B-C (Ab-B is the aug 2nd) in a C harmonic minor scale is rather different than playing C-Eb.

[Nickolovitch]

You mean if the original cantus firmus had all been in one given scale (c harmonic min) then that distance of notes in the counterpoint line would have been less desireable than if the cf had been for example diatonic to a major key which had the same distances of notes in it ?

[agincourtdb]

In modern use, enharmonic spelling and their resulting theoretical implications are more about linear function than 'sound' per se (although that's still technically a function of counterpoint, just not traditional counterpoint).

Frex: A diad of C D# is unstable and likely to resolve to C E. Whereas the minor third C Eb is stable and can be considered a point of rest. It's about where it's going.

Hope that helps.

[Ogg Vorbis]

So simply following this set of rules like a handy formula or recipe (I didn't see rules as restrictions in this context) and applying them to a phrase out of one of my compositions for example wouldn't instantly give me a useable classical sounding part to have in the background?

I get the tennis analogy I think - and that seems to imply the answer's no.

I think I understand what you're asking...you want to apply some polyphonic counterlines to something you wrote and wonder if studying a bit of species counterpoint could give you a ready means to give your music a little "Baroque sound".

The short answer is "no" because studying counterpoint does not really address that directly.

Counterpoint and polyphony are not the same thing. Just because you study counterpoint does not mean you can create multiple independent voices. People frequently mis-use the term "counterpoint" to mean a bunch of different active and independent voices all sounding simultaneously. That's not counterpoint, that's polyphony (in the instrumental texture sense, not the Korg/Roland/Yamaha sense.) Counterpoint is to polyphony what architecture is to columns.

To get some quick polyphony going in your piece, you might just try using more of a "static" chord-type harmonization and then add some more rhythms to your supporting parts to connect the chord tones and to add some arpeggiation, etc.. If you experiment enough, you will eventually refine your added part or parts to sound something like an independent voice.

An idea is to use eighth notes in your countermelody especially when your main melody is holding a quarter note or a longer note. Then the motion is trading back and forth instead of doing too much simultaneous motion. This will help your voices sound more independent.

Poor Yngwie...he's looking like an old piece of lutefisk. I am sure some nice old grannies would still go for him.

[jancivil]

You can get some 'classic baroque' kinds of *effects* in your music without bothering with Fux at all.
It's all about the *part-writing*; most part-writing discipline is taught according to principles which aren't alien to say JS Bach.

This kind of thing is a cross between 'harmony', thinking in terms of 'chordal' movement in terms of 'what bass' (which is kind of structured in a vertical manner) and (the more horizontal consideration of) contrapuntal thinking. Fux can be part of a wholistic study of these subjects, but the idea of it being your big foundation is kind of historical and if you're not going to remain steeped in the history might be kind of getting too much to think, if one is ready to act...

IE: it's going to be taught at conservatory, not so much at Berklee.
'

[Ogg Vorbis]

I think the bottom line here is "If it ain't Baroque, don't Fux it."

Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha

[duncanparsons]

Ogg, that's fab - I shall squirrel that away for next time I'm with some professors!

[Chester Desmond]

I think the bottom line here is "If it ain't Baroque, don't Fux it."

HAHAHA.. the only thing I understood in this thread.. good one!

[Nickolovitch]

You can get some 'classic baroque' kinds of *effects* in your music without bothering with Fux at all.
It's all about the *part-writing*; most part-writing discipline is taught according to principles which aren't alien to say JS Bach.

This kind of thing is a cross between 'harmony', thinking in terms of 'chordal' movement in terms of 'what bass' (which is kind of structured in a vertical manner) and (the more horizontal consideration of) contrapuntal thinking.
'

and.....?

[Sepheritoh]

Yes. Anybody can benefit by knowing the "principles" of counterpoint. How you apply it is up to you. Theory has moved on from the Fux counterpoint and became more complex, but also easier to apply in chordal music. Modern music is full of great examples of counterpoint being applied in more creative ways than the simple rules. In fact it would be difficult today to not use counterpoint today in modern music that makes use of duets, backing vocals, orchestration, etc. It is however very easy to get it "wrong".

I will follow this discussion further with interest.

[jancivil]

You can get some 'classic baroque' kinds of *effects* in your music without bothering with Fux at all.
It's all about the *part-writing*; most part-writing discipline is taught according to principles which aren't alien to say JS Bach.

This kind of thing is a cross between 'harmony', thinking in terms of 'chordal' movement in terms of 'what bass' (which is kind of structured in a vertical manner) and (the more horizontal consideration of) contrapuntal thinking.
'

and.....?

You might take a class which teaches basic part-writing (by which I mean you decorate a tune with four voices according to certain principles) and avoid this kind of... Fux, who isn't crucial to the task at hand as I see it... it's arcane and kind of academic to go that far into something which amounts to backstory behind the art of part-writing. It's very picky stuff and won't sound all that, if you get my drift.