# Would you describe this texture as contrapuntal?



## Celloissimo

This isn't anything serious, this exercise isn't particularly inspired, I was just wondering whether I have achieved a contrapuntal texture in this brief example.

http://www.noteflight.com/scores/view/86e85576cc8f8b926261e06e25c8ac1d70fb5398


----------



## PetrB

I'll say, flat-out, no.

But you can answer this yourself readily enough by using your ears. 

Mute the soprano part and play back the alto part solo, then see if you, impartially (I know that is difficult), hear it as holding the full attention of your ear and qualifying as a wholly independent melodic line which needs no other additional notes or parts 'to sound complete.' 

No? 

Back to the drawing board


----------



## Celloissimo

Back to the drawing board I guess. Thanks for the input.


----------



## PetrB

Celloissimo said:


> Back to the drawing board I guess. Thanks for the input.


Other than one's personal attachment (and pride) in 'what I just made,' your ear is really the best critic -- and guide -- you can have! That alto part sounds like so much harmonic / textural filler, not an independent melodic line. Not that all counterpoint and every line of it will have that full ear-grabbing melodic quality, but something pretty damned close to 

Do not in any way be discouraged!

Autodidact or trained, most of us who attempt composing have to write many 'bad' pieces, music which is less than successful, to get anywhere near having command to make better. So... write, write, write, always use your ears to the best of your critical faculties and think of how you can best serve the piece vs. 'expressing yourself,' (if you learn how to serve the piece, you will be expressing yourself, lol,) and it will get better... as to how much of that you will need to do, there is no fixed amount nor any guarantee that after X number of exercises and pieces... but without the continued effort (and a lot of paper or virtual files ultimately dumped) there is no going forward at all.

Best regards.


----------



## Vasks

There are moments of counterpoint; mss 5 & 6 can easily be considered 2:1 species, but the beginning and end are not contrapuntal at all. Now it is OK for the ending to break away from being contrapuntal, but the beginning must be.

More importantly, for such a short example each of your two voices need to be more unified in terms of melody/motives. Both voices right now are all over the map with not one motivic idea ever explored; each measure has a new idea, EXCEPT for the lower voice of mss 5 & 6. What you did there needs to be done other places.


----------



## Celloissimo

Vasks said:


> There are moments of counterpoint; mss 5 & 6 can easily be considered 2:1 species, but the beginning and end are not contrapuntal at all. Now it is OK for the ending to break away from being contrapuntal, but the beginning must be.
> 
> More importantly, for such a short example each of your two voices need to be more unified in terms of melody/motives. Both voices right now are all over the map with not one motivic idea ever explored; each measure has a new idea, EXCEPT for the lower voice of mss 5 & 6. What you did there needs to be done other places.


Ahh gotcha, I was trying to avoid heterophony if the lines resembled each other too much, but I overcompensated with a total lack of unification.


----------



## Vasks

I took your first measure and made my own exercise. I'll point out some details in another reply.









View attachment Ctp.mp3


----------



## Vasks

Creating unity:

1) Note the similar rhythmic nature of lower voice from m. 1 to m. 2
2) Note that the upper voice of m.2 is shaped similarly to its m. 1.
2) Note the upper voice in m. 3 explores lower voice's rhythm of previous measures.
3) Observe that the lower voice of m. 3 is an inversion of m. 2's upper voice
4) Notice that m. 3 is sequenced a step lower in m. 4.
5) The lower voice of m. 5 & 6 is an augmentation of the upper voice (last beat of m. 1 and first 3 beats of m. 2)


----------



## Celloissimo

Nice! This helped a lot, I appreciate it.


----------



## MJTTOMB

I'll chime in to echo what has already been said and to add that you can find a series of helpful do-it-yourself lessons on counterpoint here. Of course, species counterpoint is a very old and rigid form of counterpoint and we can find examples of counterpoint that deliberately break or even reverse these rules throughout the 20th century (for example, in the "dissonant counterpoint" of Carl Ruggles or in Stravinsky's double fugue from the _Symphony of Psalms_). Nonetheless, in both cases the counterpoint operates on an understanding of the rules and their deliberate inversion (in the case of Ruggles) or tonal distortion (for Stravinsky).

Before trying these exercises, try to learn more about the technical logic behind traditional counterpoint and then apply that knowledge in your writing. Specifically, a few pointers for traditional counterpoint: 
1) Try to limit yourself to a few rhythmic ideas (anywhere from a beat to a measure long) and use these throughout your exercise. Also feel free to play with augmentation (doubling note values) and diminution (halving) of these rhythmic ideas. If you are trying to imitate Baroque contrapuntal practice, absolutely avoid intermingling triplets and duplets.
2) Be especially careful when moving in similar motion for "hidden" octaves and 5ths. There are a number of octaves approached by similar motion in your counterpoint exercise.
3) Avoid dissonant harmonic intervals (2nds, 4ths, tritones, and 7ths) on strong beats _except_ when prepared as a suspension.
4) Melodic leaps should be followed immediately by a step in the opposite direction. Moreover, leaps of dissonant melodic intervals (tritones and 7ths) should be avoided.


----------



## Celloissimo

I studied all your advice with great care and applied them to the best of my ability in a new exercise. 

http://www.noteflight.com/scores/view/7e882c8f0658b683ea26d1e9adabb496ea7b5b90


----------



## Vasks

The link's connection needs me to "sign up" to see & hear it...I don't want to "sign up".


----------



## Celloissimo

My bad, should work now.


----------



## Vasks

Oh, there's so much to learn...but then again 18th Century counterpoint is a minimum of a one semester class. 

The first two bars shows you've taken some advice to heart, but there are other technical challenges in them that I've not yet addressed...because it does take time to learn it all. But let's move on. Ms. 4 needs to be contrapuntal so the big long dotted half note has got to be replaced with shorter note values. It's too soon to break away from being contrapuntal.

Now back to ms. 1. On every downbeat you must have (from the low voice note to the upper voice note) a consonant interval (either a major or minor third, a perfect fifth, a major or minor sixth or a perfect octave). Take a look at the 4th beat. You have a 7th (from "B" to "A"). It's considered dissonant and obscures harmony. (Some other time we have to discuss harmony because in the end good counterpoint is a perfect combo of melodies that also delineate specific chords throughout).

The only other issue you need to deal now with is "melody". Your first 2 bars work, but the upper part in measure 3 is too static (the repeated "G" kills melodic flow). Notice that your upper part melody is rising up a 4th in each of those first three bars. At that point your melody sits around that "G" area for too long before running up the the highest "D". You have 2 choices: (1) either have the "G" of m.3 be your melodic climax of the entire piece or (2) retreat/descend from the "G" and make your melody move convincingly higher in m.4. In other words you should have only one melodic peak/climax for each voice and I'm saying you currently have two and one needs to go.


----------

