Is Counterpoint necesary?

I was reading online about things you should know when you compose music, and one of the first things listed was Counterpoint. I had heard of counterpoint before but didnt know much about it so i looked it up and it looks really confusing with a bunch of rules and what not. Are all of these rules of counterpoint needed when composing music?

Not necessarily. For example Williams Billings and some American hymns from the 19th century (shape note style) break the rules. The counterpoint rules you are viewing derive from practice that arose from 15 -16 th century and then freed up a little in the 18th century. The 16th and 18th century counterpoint practices are studied just to understand what limits composers worked within or worked "around". Even 20th century composers such as Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Webern, Carter looked to these old practices as a referential framework.

Also, counterpoint helps a heap with orchestration - lets you determine why something sound unintentionally muddy or square.

Last if you write conservative jazz/classical or traditional pop then counterpoint is ESSENTIAL. Look carefully how bass and soprano lines are put together in these genres and you will see they are based on practices dating from mozart, Schubert and even Bach)

So the short answer - it isn't necessary to study counterpoint BUT (and this is a huge but) the majority of composers are better off studying it (even people like Xenakis, Scelsi and far out pop groups like THe Residents at least looked at this subject)

It depends. Counterpoint isn't necessarily, but it can give a sense of movement and direction to a piece that otherwise wouldn't be there. The general consensus, especially now, is that it's never really necessary to follow all the rules of counterpoint, but rather just to understand them and their effects. By understanding them, you'll know exactly when to follow them, and when to break them. Even if you don't necessarily follow these rules, they're useful as a point of reference, in the same way that composers of music that isn't traditionally tonal may want to learn common-practice harmony.

On the other hand, you've got C.P.E. Bach, who said, "Many more essential things are wanting to constitute a good composer than counterpoint."

Also, sometimes the lack of counterpoint can be more powerful....

It depends. Counterpoint isn't necessarily, but it can give a sense of movement and direction to a piece that otherwise wouldn't be there. The general consensus, especially now, is that it's never really necessary to follow all the rules of counterpoint, but rather just to understand them and their effects. By understanding them, you'll know exactly when to follow them, and when to break them. Even if you don't necessarily follow these rules, they're useful as a point of reference, in the same way that composers of music that isn't traditionally tonal may want to learn common-practice harmony.

On the other hand, you've got C.P.E. Bach, who said, "Many more essential things are wanting to constitute a good composer than counterpoint."

C.P.E. Bach said that? Jeez, he really liked to bust his Dad's balls, didn't he? That's not the first time I've seen where he had something to say that almost bitterly seemed to smack of opposition to his father's teaching.

Notwithstanding, one of the most monumental fugues I've ever heard/performed is the final movement of C.P.E.'s Magnificat in D. Maybe that was a statement of some kind, too.

CPE was very conflicted by his father. Understandably so.

If you think you need it,

you need it.

If you think you don't,

you don't.

Except if you're wrong!

Then it's the other way around.

That's not the first time I've seen where he had something to say that almost bitterly seemed to smack of opposition to his father's teaching.

He also called the canon a "dry and despicable piece of pedantry." So yeah, he was a rebellious teen well into his seventies.

No.

Listen to a ton of good music and learn how to play piano by ear.

If you can do that well, good counterpoint and voice leading will happen instinctively in your music.

The biggest thing I got out of the limited counterpoint classes i took:

Separate lines provide more information than unisons.

We're learning some basic counterpoint in my theory class(which reminds me that I have an assignment to do)

Really, I think that it's more of a case by case issue of whether counterpoint in necesary or not.

If you were writing a quartet for instance would you write it in all unison? Also, vice versa, would you really want at least two different lines of music the whole way through? And never really culminating in a satisfying end?

We're learning some basic counterpoint in my theory class(which reminds me that I have an assignment to do)

Really, I think that it's more of a case by case issue of whether counterpoint in necesary or not.

If you were writing a quartet for instance would you write it in all unison? Also, vice versa, would you really want at least two different lines of music the whole way through? And never really culminating in a satisfying end?

I would suggest you maybe wait until you've done more than "learn some basic counterpoint" before making any really significant observations about counterpoint and its usefulness or otherwise in composition.

Referring to "two different lines" as "not satisfying" is sort of missing the point about what exactly counterpoint is.

You can write a piece of music and apply principles of counterpoint from first to last note, without needing to write a fugue or other strict contrapuntal form, and definitely come to a most satisfying conclusion.

As for the OP:

Nothing is "necessary".

However, why deny yourself additional tools to your arsenal of compositional techniques?

The more craft you master, the more ease you have with achieving your aims.

However, why deny yourself additional tools to your arsenal of compositional techniques?

The more craft you master, the more ease you have with achieving your aims.

These sentences apply to so many discussions on here, and win at all of them.

Michel is the man.

I would suggest you maybe wait until you've done more than "learn some basic counterpoint" before making any really significant observations about counterpoint and its usefulness or otherwise in composition.

Referring to "two different lines" as "not satisfying" is sort of missing the point about what exactly counterpoint is.

You can write a piece of music and apply principles of counterpoint from first to last note, without needing to write a fugue or other strict contrapuntal form, and definitely come to a most satisfying conclusion.

I did not expect this kind of response to rhetorical questions.

---

As to whether counterpoint is necessary, it is when you are following a curriculum that requires it.

If you write more than one line in your music, it's technically some type of counterpoint. The study of it can only help you understand how different parts can function together.

If you write more than one line in your music, it's technically some type of counterpoint.

Yes, but if you're just using plain block chords, it's called crappy counterpoint. It can still be excellent music, but it'll be crappy counterpoint by most standards today. :P

Is alberti bass really counterpoint, you think, then? Or something like an ostinato? Even one or two notes repeated over and over with a melody on top, like Schubert's Erlking?

I don't mean just any block chords. Gah, you know what I mean. :P

Like, species counterpoint exercises are block chords, but there are ways that such exercises emphasize independence of lines, so that's not under what I meant. Sorry, I should've been more specific. But doubling woodwinds in thirds, for example, is "counterpoint", technically, but crappy counterpoint by many standards. (Then again, most people don't do it for a contrapuntal purpose...)

An alberti bass alone could be considered three voices, which might be treated with contrapunctual ideas in mind. Whether you actually do that is a different question.

counterpoint is the king! it's like yin to yang, man to woman, albert to modest, beer to whisky!