Whats a good book on Counterpoint?

Yea, just wondering what peoples opinions are... and i hated fux's book

There's a wonderful book by Thomas Benjamin called The Craft of Tonal Counterpoint, which is essentially an extensive, theoretical study (with exercises) of J.S. Bach's music, complete with a score anthology and a system derived from Shenkerian analysis.

Quite honestly I haven't done much more than skim this book, as I study counterpoint in a...well...different...way...but, it is at least quite informative and I'm sure would be very useful to those seeking a more systematic approach.

So...if you don't want to get totally "fux"0red, get that book.

What didn't you like about the Fux?

I think the Fux is probably the best out there.... maybe you should try reading it again....

I just cant stand the language... i need something a little more modern. I read through it, twice, plus practiced the material but i still just kinda hate the speech and context. Something up front would be nicer, looked at with a modern eye, i dont know

I just cant stand the language... i need something a little more modern. I read through it, twice, plus practiced the material but i still just kinda hate the speech and context. Something up front would be nicer, looked at with a modern eye, i dont know

I just cant stand the language... i need something a little more modern. I read through it, twice, plus practiced the material but i still just kinda hate the speech and context. Something up front would be nicer, looked at with a modern eye, i dont know

Really? I found it quite engaging. But then, I've been known to read Geoffrey Chaucer in Middle English and Shakespeare historical tragedies purely for their entertainment value.

Still, Duck is right. I'm not sure what you're expecting, but on such a subject, I doubt you're going to find something very easy-going. I have another counterpoint book, "Counterpoint In The Style of J.S. Bach" - a comprehensive examination of Bach's way of handling the art - that is certainly more modern, but the language is necessarily technical and textbookish. Counterpoint is complex, and modern descriptions of it are especially frought with technical jargon. I believe Fux's "teacher and student dialogue" approach is far more accessible, even in 17th Century vernacular.

Are you reading Alfred Mann's translation ("The Study of Counterpoint")? He tries very hard to make the language more accessible. It certainly doesn't read like the King James Bible - not that there's anything wrong with that at all.

hehe!

I often find learning music theory in reverse helps. Try messing around with various devices which you have a vague notion about. You know that counterpoint involves movement of various voices in harmony with one another. Start writing that way.

Once you've gained some intuitive knowledge doing this, then read up on counterpoint. You may discover: "Ah! I was applying such and such species counterpoint and I didn't even know it!"

For me I find this way of learning solidifies knowledge much better because I feel that what I have learned was already inherent in my ear and already inherent in my compositions. It simply reinforces what I discover.

Thank You for all the ideas! I will try Fux once more but i may be wierd and actually like Jargan and Textbookish styles. Wordy and extensive are my preferences, and i like a modern feel as im not the BIGGEST fan of classical. Nice to listen to, not my favorite though

Well then, Jay, perhaps the book Derek suggested might be a better fit. I regret that the book I suggested, "Counterpoint in the Style of J.S. Bach" by Thomas Benjamin is apparently out of print, and the used copies for sale on Barnes and Noble and Amazon are going for over $200 US (!). Pity, because it's a splendid book.

Derek, it seems to me that occasionally I employ the same method as you do, i.e. trying something out based on my (albeit limited) knowledge, then comparing it to a textbook example to see how my work compares. This isn't a bad idea at all. The problem, it seems to me, is that many attempt something without bothering to do the comparison.

Ahhh, the book you mentioned is one of many at the local university library! I love having family who go to college. Anyways, im trying fux again and im not trying piston's book ever again. If i have the money ill try derek's book, it looks very interesting!

Knud Jeppessons(COUNTER POINT) is the finest tutorial on counter point.it deals with the style of palestrina which is vocal,not instrumental.get ready for a LOT more rules than FUX ,but when you can understand whey these rules have been imposed you will undersand the very quantum mechanics of counterpoint.i am sure that you will have trouble understanding why all the rules are there as compared to other more instrumental approaches but belive me it is SO SO SO worth it.then you must look at the more instrumental approach which you will find that everything comes into perspective.i also strongly reccommend walter pistons book on counter point.it is not a speiceis text but instead a analysis of bach and beyond.some people think that counter point is just note relationships but there is more to it than that.there is metric counterpoint,harmonic counterpoint,rythmic counterpoint etc.many students of composition study counterpoint but at the end of the day they just dont get the BIG picture on it usefulness.i want to write an essay on this website about my thoughts and i will disscus some things that you may be interested in so stay tuned.

bye for now

Does someone have a scanned version of Fux's book (hehe)?

Truly, I would like to have it

Well then, Jay, perhaps the book Derek suggested might be a better fit. I regret that the book I suggested, "Counterpoint in the Style of J.S. Bach" by Thomas Benjamin is apparently out of print, and the used copies for sale on Barnes and Noble and Amazon are going for over $200 US (!). Pity, because it's a splendid book.

Derek, it seems to me that occasionally I employ the same method as you do, i.e. trying something out based on my (albeit limited) knowledge, then comparing it to a textbook example to see how my work compares. This isn't a bad idea at all. The problem, it seems to me, is that many attempt something without bothering to do the comparison.

For me, my ear always suffices to judge whether or not a choice I made while creating music was good or not. If I really wanted to sound as much like Mozart and Beethoven as possible, then I would probably exert more effort in writing more "correctly" harmonically. However it seems to me in the context of metrically free, improvised music such as my own, there exists so much spontaneous rhythmic counterpoint as well as harmonic, that it more or less erodes the effect that vertical harmony has on the independence of voices. The ear "latches on" to several rhythmically free strands, and perceives them as independent because of their individual motion. When several voices are moving in more or less lock-step such as in Baroque and Classical, then it seems to me to make more sense to study vertical harmony. Therefore, then, it is clearly a craft which would be useful to you and others who are interested in deriving much of their style from that era.