Is counterpoint really worth studying nowadays?

Who out there thinks that counterpoint should still be a regular part of someone's practice routine? Someone recently gave me a copy of Gradus Ad Parnassum and as i was flicking through it occured to me that someone with previous composing experience and a good ear doesn't really need it ...

What does everyone think? Am i talking bollocks?

Defining what is "necessary" knowledge for a composer today is quite hard. With the wide range of options you have as a composer today, there are no clear universal abilities that everyone must have in order to compose. If you wrote merely electronic music, for instance, you wouldn't even have to be able to read/write notated music.

However, I think a composer should seek to gain a basic understanding of her or his musical environement and background too, and not just learn what is directly needed for ones own compositions. Otherwise chances are that you are closing yourself off in a musical corner and cease developing. And the rules of traditional counterpoint just so happen to be a very important aspect of the musical culture and history of the "western world".

I don't think one has to practice writing pieces in the style of Palestrina every day, in order to become a composer (you can leave that to people who make it their main goal to imitate Palestrina), but I certainly think it's worthwhile to learn the basics and try them out once or twice, just to gain a musical experience that has greatly influenced our music history for the last few centuries, and which form a part of the cultural environment we grow up in.

Likewise, I think a contemporary composer should seek to have a basic understanding of Jazz, popular music, acoustics, and other musical aspects that have become part of our musical culture, but still often aren't really included in "classical" academic education.

The important part here is that I think artistic education should go further than just "teaching you what you can directly apply". It should be a chance to look at music from different perspectives, show contexts and backgrounds and give impulses from a wide variety of different directions, which gives you the necessary range of knowledge to actually choose and develop where you want to go, instead of just doing the same small thing again and again, better and better.

So yes, I think counterpoint -is- worth studying. How much time you actually want to invest in it is a different question and depends on personal preferences.

Thanks a lot - great advice/perspective.

Why limit your bag of tricks? Counterpoint is immensely useful, and, as I have unfortunately discovered, isn't replaceable with a good ear, unless you want to rediscover all the counterpoint rules yourself. So, as Gardener said, at least try it!

Why limit your bag of tricks? Counterpoint is immensely useful, and, as I have unfortunately discovered, isn't replaceable with a good ear, unless you want to rediscover all the counterpoint rules yourself. So, as Gardener said, at least try it!

*Considers once again if I should partake in CO's counterpoint lessons*

... what is counterpoint exactly?

Sounds complicated to me.

:D

well DD, counterpoint is a technique where you usually have two melodic lines playing over each-other. A pianist playing bass line in their left hand while playing melody in right can be considered counterpoint. But its much more developed in traditional orchestration, and there is a pretty long list of rules concerning writing in counterpoint. There is even different types of counterpoint depending on who patented it and when it first appeared. And each one has its own set of rules. But basically I think that if it sounds good, then it probably is good, the rules are meant to be broken :D But you really do have to know what the rules are in order to break them.

ohhhhh ok coolness. Thanks for that, I feel slightly less in the dark :) Maybe i'll research it some more to get a better idea of the rules. And hell yes they're meant to be broken!!!

:D

Some very good points made already.

I just want to clarify for you the preconception that "counterpoint" means renaissance/baroque music, or is confined to a specific period. What we know as "counterpoint" is really present in many forms ranging from the Renaissance to the Postmodern (but not all of course). So if you want to write a modern piece or a Romantic symphony you will (for the most part) need counterpoint, as it will determine the shapes of your melodic lines, influence voice leading, and so on.

Noone is forcing you to use it seeing as many of these contrapuntal composers have since died. So it goes.

In any case it could in no way hurt to take a look at Fux's famous and timeless book.

Fux's entire book can be boiled down to one simple rule: no direct motion into perfect consonances is allowed. That means no parallel 8ths (octaves) or 5ths.

If you know the other basic rules of composition/harmony/part writing (no 6/4 chords, preparation/resolution of dissonances and major/dominant 7th chords, etc) and practice decent voice leading then you should be for the most part fine with just that one basic simplification of counterpoint rules.

:toothygrin:

Fux's book is really, really out-dated. Seriously, save up the money for a better text on Counterpoint than his. Peter Schubert has a very nice book on modal counterpoint, and Kent Kennan's is used in the majority of universities for tonal counterpoint. Don't go with Fux or Jeppeson just because they are cheap!

/me reads his Fux....

I don't see anything wrong with it...

I just love counterpoint.

I read Fux's book when I first learnt counterpoint. I found it a bit boring, may I say that. Later on I read Salzer's "Structural Hearing" and found its chapter on counter point illuminating.

Without counterpoint, Metallica would just be another band.

Ron

Which they are ... :)

If you wish to dispense with tonal counterpoint, then study non-tonal counterpoint. This basically throws all of Fux et al on its head and states amongst other things that consonances must be 'resolved' into a dissonance; consecutive seconds, fourths and fifths are encouraged...

Praise to the poster who pointed out that counterpoint is absolutely not confined to the Renaissance/Baroque eras! There has never been a time when the leading composers did not learn about and use counterpoint in their work - Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Sibelius, Bartok, Holst, Mahler, the Second Viennese School and Stravinsky were all masters of polyphonic writing. It is an essential technique in almost any piece to avoid the monotony of sustained homophonic textures - particularly choral music. It always amazes me how many contemporary choral composers write music which consists of little little else but 'nice' chord progressions, when an ensemble of voices, by virtue of their similar but individual tone qualities, is perfect for polyphonic music. I dunno, maybe they're too lazy to study or are afraid of sounding complex or 'different'.

Actually, I think the counterpoint of some non-tonal schools like the Second Viennese School is actually surprisingly not that much different from Fux' rules. I've never seen anything like "consonances resolving into dissonances" really. Of course, you have to forget about all the rules about the treatment of dissonances, but some other rules are still generally followed. You'll rarely find parallel octaves in a Webern or Sch

Great summary of Fux's work!

However this needs some precisions: Music evolved so slowy that some rules based on good reasons persist while the original cause of the rules have disappeared. For instance medieval music was base upon Pythagorean system and therefore parallel fifths or fourths which were pure and could be played while thirds were too high and were dissonant.Later on Zarlino system enhanced thirds but some fifths got impure so parallel fifths forbidding and third beeing consonnance are justified. Nowadays ,equal temperament makes all intervals but octave false so parallel fifths interdiction is no longer valid.Counterpoint was originally modal with complicated pile up rules according to the evolution of modes.Fux 's treatise is an adaptation to tonal music but the rules are quiet anachronistic . However it is an useful mean to build a writing technique

studying counterpoint is cool. As someone else stated, it adds to a bag of tricks!

Please read gardener's posts before posting anything else. They sum up nicely the pros and cons of studying counterpoint AND its use. I am a big fan of the Jeppesen because although he focuses on Palestrinian counterpoint he offers a great historical perspective - he shows even an occasional example of 18th century style and pre Palestrina earlier counterpoint for comparison.

Yet do explore other texts out there and try the threads I put up - I do promise that I will post an example of counterpoint use in real music.

Depends. Are you writing in a style that is significantly influenced by Bach and the baroque school of thought?

I think the main problem is that, like with most music theory, we reduce it to a contrived set of rules that doesnt really work on a practical level and caters to people who arent capable of picking it up by ear, taught by professors in a world of music where "that sounds like crap" is no longer a valid criticism.

If you listen to Bach, study his music, and write a few keyboard pieces imitating his style, (provided that you're good enough) then you're getting everything you need that a lot of music curriculum would try to teach by giving you a set of rules and marking you off when you broke rules that Bach himself did not necessarily even strictly follow.

But like I said, are you writing music that values those principles? Or are you like Debussy, where you arent concerned with writing something that lives up to the legacy of a composer like Beethoven? Personally it shocks me that standard music theory introduction obsessively beats into the heads of music students the principles of counterpoint and functional harmony, and BS like how "bad" parallel fifths sound, and then people sit around and say "wtf why are poeple so closed off to contemporary music?!?!?!?!"

Dont study counterpoint. Study music.

Personally it shocks me that standard music theory introduction obsessively beats into the heads of music students the principles of counterpoint and functional harmony, and BS like how "bad" parallel fifths sound, and then people sit around and say "wtf why are poeple so closed off to contemporary music?!?!?!?!"

Dont study counterpoint. Study music.

Then why even have music courses? If you don't want music schools to teach MUSIC theory and rules at all then why have music school? Why not just tell everyone "Just write whatever notes you want to write randomly and that's fine, there's no rules." I don't quite see your logic.

Depends. Are you writing in a style that is... (old)

Because music after Bach doesn't utilize other kinds of counterpoint?

Personally it shocks me that standard music theory introduction obsessively beats into the heads of music students the principles of counterpoint and functional harmony, and BS like how "bad" parallel fifths sound, and then people sit around and say "wtf why are poeple so closed off to contemporary music?!?!?!?!"

Dont study counterpoint. Study music.

I have yet to see a counterpoint or theory class that does the above bolded statement.

I'm very sorry if your professors took this approach, but it's quite erroneous.

Study counterpoint.

Understand why those rules came into existence, and why they applied at that time.

Then study more counterpoint, and see how it DOES apply to all music, regardless of harmonic language.

Don't let yourself be discouraged by people who say that "counterpoint/harmony/theory (take your pick) doesn't apply in modern music so you don't need them".

All of these tools of the trade apply, in some form or other, to composition. Regardless of what your particular harmonic language happens to be.

The more you understand how and why they applied (strictly) at one point in time, the better you can find ways to apply the principles behind them to your own harmonic language, whether tonal or non-tonal.

Just be aware that taking a year or two of counterpoint, or a college class in music theory, is NOT enough of an understanding of the principles to get to that point.

And blindly memorizing rules without understanding them is no better.

Learn the rules, do the exercises to the very best of your ability.

and THEN!

go out of your way to BREAK those very rules, and see WHY, WHERE, HOW they work or don't work for you.

It will become pretty obvious that certain "rules" are always applicable, like the stricture on parallel octaves. You will understand WHY that stricture exists, and what acoustic principle is behind it. You will also understand to which context that rule applies.

counterpoint is great guide to become a better composer, not a sound designer and a maker of special effects and generic sounding orchestras for MMORPG, this is about the essence and harmonic rhythm of notes and their connectivity not only in the vertical meaning(chords), but of the horizontal sense, many use it as a tool, fewer can actually make music out of it, but even as a tool it is a very powerful composer tool. it is opening so many possibilities for a simple line, like reharmonization in jazz but in a pure way.

it is quite obvious while listening to a composition who utilize counterpoint(and does it well if any) and who is using the strength of his production abilities.