Free Or Strict Counterpoint For Learning?

I have Kent Kennans 4th edition counterpoint and was reading the preface. He mentioned something free counterpoint and strict counterpoint. I can't find exactly where it is written, but I think he mentioned that he taught free counterpoint. Does anyone know? Also, what is better for learning counterpoint? Free or strict?

I have no idea. All I know is species counterpoint didn't teach me anything I already didn't know from simply studying melodies and how they interact. I find studying Bach is far more fun esp. his fugues.

Strict counterpoint is counterpoint that wholly adheres to the regular rules of species counterpoint (around a cantus firmus). Free counterpoint is counterpoint that is less restricted to the regular rules of species counterpoint (generally appears without a cantus firmus).

I like to think a more modern application of strict and free counterpoint is:

Strict: counterpoint that supports and enhances the chief melodic material within traditional contrapuntal means.

Free: counterpoint that may or may not support, but does enhance, the chief melodic material outside that of traditional means.

For instance, a harmonically oriented contrapuntal texture with 2 or more lines of counterpoint that work to support and enhance the chief melodic material would be strict counterpoint while a chaotic contrapuntal texture with 2 or more lines of individually derived contrapuntal material that conflict with each other, while at the same time enhancing each other would be free counterpoint.

Not sure if that helps, at all, but that's just my personal take on it.

I would think that 'free' counterpoint would apply to music that doesn't exploit scales (e.g. serial) as well as those that utilize synthetic ones.

You would, wouldn't you...

So what's the best text for studying? I've looked through several and some tuturials on the internet and they all seem to have different rules for what is and is not allowed.

For learners I would suggest "playing it by ear", not following any fixed rules. Most of the time I make up my own rules of counterpoint (and these rules can vary significantly depending on the composition) and this works pretty well for me.

I wouldn't "play it by ear" to begin with. You need to understand the "rules" first to understand why and when you should break them. By all means follow your ear but don't be ignorant of the theory, it was created for a reason.

If you're looking for a text on counterpoint, the standard one is probably Gradus Ad Parnassum by Joseph Fux. It was used by Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven amongst others.

Personally I wouldn't recommend Fux... it's outdated. Kent Kennan's books are fine. If you learn strict counterpoint you can write "free" counterpoint. It's rare to find pieces these days that follow all the guidelines of "strict" counterpoint. If you wanna throw in some parallel 5ths or other"forbidden" techniques in your pieces, then do it... if you believe it sounds desirable.

Personally I wouldn't recommend Fux... it's outdated. Kent Kennan's books are fine. If you learn strict counterpoint you can write "free" counterpoint. It's rare to find pieces these days that follow all the guidelines of "strict" counterpoint. If you wanna throw in some parallel 5ths or other"forbidden" techniques in your pieces, then do it... if you believe it sounds desirable.

I don't understand how a 20th century book on 18th century counterpoint by Kent Kennan can be any more reliable than a book on 18th century counterpoint that was written in the 18th century. If anything, you shouldn't use Kent Kennan's book because it is anachronistic. Of course pieces now don't follow strict counterpoint but a lot of the voice leading principles that are learned through studying strict counterpoint are fundamental to all styles of composition so don't just "throw in some parallel 5ths", learn why you should or shouldn't throw in some parallel 5ths first then you can make an informed decision.

There's a java app, you can try out 1st species cp. with it, both standard and strict styles. It's not the best, but at least you'll get some idea about the difference between the two styles. The rules are a bit arbitrary, though, some of them seems too rigid to me, while others are too loose even in "strict" style: http://www.emusictheory.com/practice/counterpoint.html

Máté

That's absolutely right; we should rely only on Herodotus and Procopius and not some modern historian, who couldn't possibly know any better, even with the advantages of hindsight, greater access to resources and further scholarly research!

But wait - we can't use Fux, either: it's the contrapuntal style of the 16th century which he means to cover, not that of the 18th.

First of all, Kent Kennan was not an historian, his degrees were in composition and music theory and I don't see how his interpretation of source material can be any better than the actual source material even if he were to be an historian. At best he could pull several sources together but Fux is the source material and any other sources are themselves indebted to Fux.

Secondly, what is the difference between 16th and 18th century counterpoint exactly? Seconda prattica allows some liberties with the rules to enhance text but it doesn't change them. Counterpoint is counterpoint. It is the idea of using counterpoint that has aged, not the method. Fux is better equipped to discuss counterpoint than Kent Kennan because contrapuntal forms were still very much a part of music in his lifetime. Not to mention that nobody of any note has recommended Kennan's book whereas composers from Bach to Hindemith have recommended Fux.

The only advantage of Kennan's book that I'll give you is accessibility as Fux's can be quite heavy going due to its age and translation from Latin. Still, the correct information is there in Fux's book without having been tampered with by historians and their "interpretations".

16th and 18th Century counterpoint is very different. Let us compare Palestrina to Bach while we're at it!

No one writes in species counterpoint, that's why I've always seen it as a pointless exercise.

16th and 18th Century counterpoint is very different. Let us compare Palestrina to Bach while we're at it!

Yes, let's do that. Take a Bach piece that is purely contrapuntal and tell me exactly how it clashes with the rules laid out by Fux. I think you'll find that the difference lies in Bach's harmonic considerations, not in any different treatment of the "rules" of counterpoint.

No one writes in species counterpoint, that's why I've always seen it as a pointless exercise.

I don't agree. It's useful to know because it teaches good voice leading principles regardless of what music you're writing.

Indeed. But I learned voice leading from writing four-part chorales much faster than I did counterpoint.

Indeed. But I learned voice leading from writing four-part chorales much faster than I did counterpoint.

Four-part chorales are essentially 1st species counterpoint.

Except more musical and far more interesting, Harmonically and melodically.

Except more musical and far more interesting, Harmonically and melodically.

So what you are saying is that some examples of counterpoint are far more interesting harmonically and melodically than other examples of counterpoint. Yes, I agree but if you want to have a decent understanding of any counterpoint, you need to study counterpoint!

*facepalm*

/me leaves thread.

*facepalm*

/me leaves thread.

So in other words, you don't have a response so you want to make it look like I am somehow being stupid when I'm not?

No it's just reached the end of useful discussion.

Wait, I thought I was leaving!

I agree, though I think it happened quite a while ago.

I second that facepalm, on a couple of accounts.

Also, 'strict' and 'free', in this case, simply refer to 'species' and 'not species' counterpoint; you learn to write in the strict 'style', first, and, so, are then equipped to write counterpoint with mixed note values, chromatic passing tones, chords of the seventh, &c., according to taste and/or style, once you've understood the 'aim' of counterpoint and how to control the voices.

I don't understand how a 20th century book on 18th century counterpoint by Kent Kennan can be any more reliable than a book on 18th century counterpoint that was written in the 18th century. If anything, you shouldn't use Kent Kennan's book because it is anachronistic. Of course pieces now don't follow strict counterpoint but a lot of the voice leading principles that are learned through studying strict counterpoint are fundamental to all styles of composition so don't just "throw in some parallel 5ths", learn why you should or shouldn't throw in some parallel 5ths first then you can make an informed decision.

I never said one book is more reliable than the other. Furthermore, Fux's book can cause confusion because it isn't written in a tonal context but a modal one. In fact, there was a thread, not too long ago, where a member was confused because of that reason. Lastly, obviously he should learn counterpoint in order to make these decisions... this is why we are helping him in this thread... but I'm saying that once he learns the "rules" he shouldn't limit himself to just writing within the rules!

I never said one book is more reliable than the other. Furthermore, Fux's book can cause confusion because it isn't written in a tonal context but a modal one. In fact, there was a thread, not too long ago, where a member was confused because of that reason. Lastly, obviously he should learn counterpoint in order to make these decisions... this is why we are helping him in this thread... but I'm saying that once he learns the "rules" he shouldn't limit himself to just writing within the rules!

Oh ok it seems we agree then! I thought you were just advocating "playing it by ear" which is obviously the ultimate goal but no way to start out. Personally, I write atonal music so I'm all for throwing the rules away! I just believe that first you have to learn the rules to earn the right to disregard them.

For me,the fact that it is in a modal context, while possibly confusing, is one of its advantages because it forces you to drop all of your harmonic "baggage" and focus purely on the counterpoint. I also think that working through it in a modal context where you're concerned purely with intervals gives an insight into how tonality developed and really helps you to understand the "nuts and bolts" of standard harmonic progressions. I think it's worth persevering with through any confusion but the most important thing is being able to understand the information and if Kennan's book allows someone to do that then fair enough, use that instead.

I have found this whole topic very educational, and a lot of fun too! :shifty:

There's a java app, you can try out 1st species cp. with it, both standard and strict styles. It's not the best, but at least you'll get some idea about the difference between the two styles. The rules are a bit arbitrary, though, some of them seems too rigid to me, while others are too loose even in "strict" style: http://www.emusicthe...unterpoint.html

Máté

Hey Mat that is a great site / game / lesson in counterpoint! Now I'm REALLY glad I came here. Thanks googols! :D :D