Question about counterpoint

Hello everyone,

I am trying to learn counterpoint with Fux. Something that I've never understood - in Fux 16th century species counterpoint, we stay within a key for 8 bars or so, but how do you do counterpoint where you are moving around harmonically? Even in simple terms - of bar 1 in C, bar 2 in F, bar 3 in G, and bar 4 back to C - how would you reinforce the harmony via counterpoint? What if a modulation was added? So we would do C, F, D major, G (new key)?

It seems the Fux rules imply looking at the cantus firmus note rather than the harmonic function. So, if the CF note is C, then I am allowed 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 intervals above, right? So if the C exists within the context of C major would be different than if it was A minor, right? So a 3rd above C being E would be part of A minor and would work, but the 4 as an F would not work, right? Because that could emphasise F major not A minor. So if I am harmonically in A minor, how would the counterpoint serve that function even though in both cases, the cantus firmus was playing a C?

Thanks!

What pitch you are allowed depends on the preceding and following note just as much as the CF, and which species you are writing in matters a lot as well.

Also, 4th's are dissonant. The consonant intervals are 3rd's 6th's and the perfects.

But 4ths ARE perfect...

Anyway, this is something I have put off learning out of fear and still havent gotten around to it. I'm sure it would help my compoistional understanding, I'm just lazy. Its pretty difficult to REALLY understand. Keep working at it though. Let me know of any tricks and short cuts you discover that could make it easier for the rest of us! :thumbsup:

But 4ths ARE perfect...

Anyway, this is something I have put off learning out of fear and still havent gotten around to it. I'm sure it would help my compoistional understanding, I'm just lazy. Its pretty difficult to REALLY understand. Keep working at it though. Let me know of any tricks and short cuts you discover that could make it easier for the rest of us! :thumbsup:

Oh geeze.

Actually it is extraordinarily simple to understand once you actually take the time to learn it. It is just time consuming to write.

And, yeah, 4ths can be perfect. I meant the other ones.

Other ones? Like augmented (ie, tritone)? An augmented 4th does not occur in a diatonic key, only a diminished 5th. And yes the tritone is often regarded as the most dissonant interval and should be strictly avoided when creating an authentic baroque style counterpoint. It was considered "the devils note" and use of it was punishable by death.

Actually it is extraordinarily simple to understand once you actually take the time to learn it. It is just time consuming to write.

And, yeah, 4ths can be perfect. I meant the other ones.

What's REALLY interesting? I NEVER ONCE used my Fux skills outside of doing the first book. No joke. I followed all the rules.

But, magically, lol, somehow my compositions got 100% more contrapuntal. Funny how that works. What's awesome, HARMONICALLY my pieces got more interesting (my harmonic language is very modern (but not atonal), for anyone who doesn't know) because I felt more comfortable with NOTES being moved around.

I think that's the relevancy of Fux for today. You don't need to WORRY about "how" to modulate by staying in the rules. You just DO it, once you know the rules... and voila! :)

At least that's what happened to me.

...An augmented 4th does not occur in a diatonic key, only a diminished 5th.

:huh: Explain, please.

(correct me if I'm wrong...but, in the key of C, what is F -> B if it's not an augmented 4th?)

:huh: Explain, please.

(correct me if I'm wrong...but, in the key of C, what is F -> B if it's not an augmented 4th?)

F to B is an augmented 4th AND a diminished 5th (though technically a diminished 5th would be F to Cb). They're enharmonic. Yeah, you're right, an augmented 4th can occur in a diatonic key. I was thinking about augmented and diminished chords when I said that. Basically, if a 3rd is present in the chord an augmented 4th (instead of a diminished 5th) would change the value of the chord entirely. An augmented chord does not occur in a diatonic key, thats where my mind was when I wrote that, sorry:blush:.

F to B is an augmented 4th AND a diminished 5th (though technically a diminished 5th would be F to Cb). They're enharmonic. Yeah, you're right, an augmented 4th can occur in a diatonic key. I was thinking about augmented and diminished chords when I said that. Basically, if a 3rd is present in the chord an augmented 4th (instead of a diminished 5th) would change the value of the chord entirely. An augmented chord does not occur in a diatonic key, thats where my mind was when I wrote that, sorry:blush:.

III+

Yeah, and since the raised leading tone is the norm in minor, that's perfectly diatonic.

Yeah, and since the raised leading tone is the norm in minor, that's perfectly diatonic.

Harmonic minor baby, harmonic minor.

Well fine! I guess I'll just quit now while I still have a portion of my dignity lol :headwall:

Yes, I do remember learning about harmonic minor in college and you are all correct of course. I guess its just been a while...thanks for the reminder :ermm:

Of course - counterpoint isn't about harmonic function. Counterpoint is about the convergence of melodies. Harmony doesn't really enter into it. Theory of tonal harmony arises from the sonorities generated by Renaissance and Baroque counterpoint - not the other way around. Modulation doesn't exactly exist in Renaissance music - rather, it's basically just modal transposition.

Harmonic minor baby, harmonic minor.

Yes, that's what I meant with the leading tone being the norm (since harmonic minor is the norm when it comes to, well, harmony) :)

Of course - counterpoint isn't about harmonic function. Counterpoint is about the convergence of melodies. Harmony doesn't really enter into it. Theory of tonal harmony arises from the sonorities generated by Renaissance and Baroque counterpoint - not the other way around. Modulation doesn't exactly exist in Renaissance music - rather, it's basically just modal transposition.

Thanks for addressing my question rather than the subsequent tangent. So, I am still trying to understand how to use counterpoint as a function of harmony. Even if it wasn't the way it was done in Renaissance/Baroque counterpoint, it still needs to fall within a harmonic plan and I can't figure out how that is done. For example - if I have a simple melody and a simple harmony to accompany that melody, if I follow counterpoint rules - it doesn't address the harmony I'm using and I can't figure out how that is done.

Thanks for addressing my question rather than the subsequent tangent. So, I am still trying to understand how to use counterpoint as a function of harmony. Even if it wasn't the way it was done in Renaissance/Baroque counterpoint, it still needs to fall within a harmonic plan and I can't figure out how that is done. For example - if I have a simple melody and a simple harmony to accompany that melody, if I follow counterpoint rules - it doesn't address the harmony I'm using and I can't figure out how that is done.

Well, when the tonal system was developed from Renaissance counterpoint, a few contrapuntal rules had to bend or break. And really - there's no reason why you can't do the same thing within your own harmonic system or idea. I mean, if counterpoint isn't going to get you from one key area to another by following the rules, that's when you've got choices to make. Either a) you change your structure to fit the counterpoint, or b) you change the counterpoint to fit the structure.

Chris -

Your premise is globally correct but too vague. There has always been harmony implied - the ancient modes always had equivalent of tonic, dominant, subdominants, mediants - eg a hierarchy of tonal points of interest. A very simple example is an alternating drone in Phyrgian on the E (tonic) and C (mediant). In Renaissance polyphony - excluding the more radical explorations of Lassus, Gesualdo and the fumeux, you could say harmony was implied by cadential treatments and the rule to start on the tonic or dominant. But yes, harmony in the modern sense , didn't start to show itself until the rise of the basso continuo and advances in instrumental music that began their acceleration in the late 16th early 17th century - Monteverdi being the "pivotal" figure. Up until and even during the 17th century, the harmonies produced arose from rules of counterpoint - that is how to wed diverse melodies. The father of common practice and its extensions (such as most jazz aside from the experimental free jazz) is Rameau's harmonic treatise and compositions. In the 18th century counterpoint was acknowledged as a necessity to being a good composer. Bach's own exploration of counterpoint stretched the rules of Renaissance polyphony. In the 19th century I'd conjecture there was a tension between a simplification of counterpoint (due to the renewed interest in the merits folk music - partly from Rousseau's philosophy and in Germany the interest in folk culture) and elaboration of counterpoint (Mendelssohn, Brahms, Bruckner) and many composers who fell in between.

Right now from what I have heard of late 20th and 21 st century musics harmony and counterpoint at best serve a symbiotic relationship with exciting 'Contrapuntal" possibilities being explored with the overtones that compose one tone (eg spectralists, some of Stockhausen's stuff), or the polyrhythms which arise or inherent in an ongoing process (Cage's aleatory experiments, Reich's and Glass' employment of phase music) or to create a greater whole (eg. rhythm sections of salsa bands, jazz rhythm sections, tons of examples in Sacre, Nancarrow's Piano Player Etudes, john adams works, messiaen, etc)

Ok, pardon if I went all over the place on this.

Heres some counterpoint like stuff I did. I did not follow any cp like rules intentionally but did worry about harmonic and motivic implications to some degree.

Jon.Slaughter - Jon Slaughter's Home Page

The first two might give some idea. The polyphonic pieces I wrote are the two imitato's, the fuguetti, and the canon. If you like them and think you might be able to learn something then I can discuss some of the techniques I used.

Personally, I never found writing species counterpoint integral to learning counterpoint. In fact, I found it counter-intuitive to learning. For me personally, I simply looked at scores of composers I admired and slowly realized that there was more going on than just a melody over chords. Scriabin shows excellent usage of counterpoint in his later sonatas and he's even so kind as to make it painstakingly clear that all of the lines are independent in his scores. Though, perhaps Scriabin isn't a great place to start since Scriabin's harmonic language was far removed from anything common-practice. Some other composers who have taught me much in the way of counterpoint is Ravel, Bartok (string quartets especially), Bach, and Barber. Probably not a great list by any means but simply sharing personal experience. Feel free to disregard it.

Counterpoint is a tool or method that helps you maximize the individuality of lines... but it does not create interesting lines. Counterpoint by itself is boring. Imitation and motivic development is the key to making thing's interesting. Imitation by itself generally is not boring but can be confusing if not done with taste.

Counterpoint is a tool or method that helps you maximize the individuality of lines... but it does not create interesting lines. Counterpoint by itself is boring. Imitation and motivic development is the key to making thing's interesting. Imitation by itself generally is not boring but can be confusing if not done with taste.

Stop trying to pass off your opinions as absolute fact. kthx

Stop trying to pass off your opinions as absolute fact. kthx

But it's ok for you? Your passing your arrogant attitude that only you can decide what is fact as fact but I can't?

k? thx!

Just because I know your incompetence won't get it I'll explain it so that even a two year old can get it. You say I am stating something as a fact. You then state as a fact. You criticize me for stating something as a fact yet you do exactly the same.

Your assuming that someone can't state something as fact... that is, unless that person is you or you agree with it. What hypocrisy. Why don't you go run for congress... you'll fit right in.

BTW, it shows not only your ego but your stupidity. First, it's obviously my opinion that the statements I said are true since they are subjective statements about aesthetics which cannot be proved in an absolute sense. Second, since you jumped on it with all the vigor of a hoe on crack it shows that you can't accept others with a different point of view. Of course I don't expect you do get it so I'm not sure why I bother...

Blimey, Jon you actually think you know what you're talking about eh? haha you make me laugh. There is no way in hell a 2 year old would be able to understand that! Doofus.

But... you DID state it like you "assumed" it to be a fact....

My original post:

Personally, I never found writing species counterpoint integral to learning counterpoint. In fact, I found it counter-intuitive to learning. For me personally, I simply looked at scores of composers I admired and slowly realized that there was more going on than just a melody over chords. Scriabin shows excellent usage of counterpoint in his later sonatas and he's even so kind as to make it painstakingly clear that all of the lines are independent in his scores. Though, perhaps Scriabin isn't a great place to start since Scriabin's harmonic language was far removed from anything common-practice. Some other composers who have taught me much in the way of counterpoint is Ravel, Bartok (string quartets especially), Bach, and Barber. Probably not a great list by any means but simply sharing personal experience. Feel free to disregard it.

Show me where exactly in any part of that post I stated anything as absolute fact.

Unless you mean my latest post. In which I was simply saying, "Hey, don't pass off personal opinions as absolutes." which you did do.

Your post had none of this. And while, admittedly, on some level, I knew that your post had an implied "In my own personal opinion", your demeanor generally reeks with arrogance and, hell, your initial post gave an examples of your *own* writing as ways to learn counterpoint. If that isn't arrogant, then I don't know what is.

Anyway, I'll try to lay off the character assassination since that seems to be all you know how to do when someone challenges your opinion (we've had disputes before on this forum). So yeah. I'll admit that I did start this fight, and probably not in the most mature way possible, but I still felt it necessary to say something. That is all.

My original post:

Show me where exactly in any part of that post I stated anything as absolute fact.

Unless you mean my latest post. In which I was simply saying, "Hey, don't pass off personal opinions as absolutes." which you did do.

Your post had none of this. And while, admittedly, on some level, I knew that your post had an implied "In my own personal opinion", your demeanor generally reeks with arrogance and, hell, your initial post gave an examples of your *own* writing as ways to learn counterpoint. If that isn't arrogant, then I don't know what is.

Anyway, I'll try to lay off the character assassination since that seems to be all you know how to do when someone challenges your opinion (we've had disputes before on this forum). So yeah. I'll admit that I did start this fight, and probably not in the most mature way possible, but I still felt it necessary to say something. That is all.

Dude, I was totally defending you... lol.

My post was directed toward Jon.

EDIT: Of course, now I know you were talking to Jon too.. and everything makes sense again. haha.