# How to Write Counterpoint



## Music Matters

A look at how to go about writing counterpoint, an advanced music composition technique.

Watch here: 









Thank you.


----------



## EdwardBast

Why spend twelve minutes studying counterpoint when one can learn to play the flute in just eight seconds?:


----------



## Roger Knox

EdwardBast said:


> Why spend twelve minutes studying counterpoint when one can learn to play the flute in just eight seconds?


Good one. Counterpoint is a craft learned by the simple-to-complex route. Your never truly learn to do everything. Verdi did counterpoint exercises for his whole his life.


----------



## TMHeimer

Excellent video. All I recall from my Univ. courses was don't write parallel 4ths, 5ths or octaves.


----------



## millionrainbows

I like the video, and I like the idea of "free" counterpoint. I also like that he points out that compromises must be made, that counterpoint is not a totally consistent process.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Why spend twelve minutes studying counterpoint when one can learn to play the flute in just eight seconds?:


Playing the flute is a more consistent and defined process. 
Counterpoint turns out to be an attempt to create a systematic way of doing something with lines, which has so many inconsistencies that it is never "mastered" as the above comment on Verdi demonstrates. 
It's a craft that is halfway between a "style" and a method. 
As a method, it is inconsistent and has a lot of variables. It seems better off to me as a "style."
There are too many glitches in the major & minor diatonic scale in order for any true consistency to be achieved. 
Counterpoint does not really exist as any "real" thing based on real musical principles; 
it's an ideological construct with no real substance. You might as well make up your own way of doing it.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> *Counterpoint does not really exist as any "real" thing* based on *real musical principles*;
> it's an ideological construct with no *real substance.* *You might as well **make up your own way of doing it.*


What musical principles are "real"? What is "real substance"? Isn't all art "made up"? Is counterpoint different in that respect? But even if art is "made up," is it really just as well for everyone to make up their own way of doing it? At what point in our musical life should we start making up our own ways of doing things?

Do you think there are any real values in art which the study of existing art and its methods and principles can help us grasp and use? Is doing one's individual thing, without reference to any achievements of one's culture, anything but solipsistic navel-gazing? Is it a path to a possible future, or even a worthwhile present, for art and humanity? How far do you want to take this dream of perfect narcissism?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> What musical principles are "real"? What is "real substance"? Isn't all art "made up"? Is counterpoint different in that respect? But even if art is "made up," is it really just as well for everyone to make up their own way of doing it? At what point in our musical life should we start making up our own ways of doing things?


Too bad everybody wasn't raised as a Jesuit.

Are you saying then to "just copy the accepted ways", without regard for what sounds best to you?



> Do you think there are any real values in art which the study of existing art and its methods and principles can help us grasp and use?


 In some cases yes, in some cases no. I'm glad that Debussy and Frank Zappa did what they wanted to do, aren't you?


> Is doing one's individual thing, without reference to any achievements of one's culture, anything but solipsistic navel-gazing?


 Those sound like "hippie" or Eastern references. If you were a teacher, would you be prejudiced against students with "hippie" tendencies, like long hair, patchouli oil, afros, guitar playing, and facial hair?


> Is it a path to a possible future, or even a worthwhile present, for art and humanity? How far do you want to take this dream of perfect narcissism?


 Hey, I just want my creative freedom, man. Maybe later when I'm an old man I'll think differently. Peace out!


----------



## Woodduck

^^^Flippant, unresponsive. You know very well that I'm not saying "just copy the accepted ways," and to ask whether I'm not glad that musical innovators departed from tradition is insulting. In fact your entire post is insulting, as well as profoundly stupid.

I asked serious questions. Your responses can't be taken seriously. If that's "invalidating," you've earned it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ^^^Flippant, unresponsive. You know very well that I'm not saying "just copy the accepted ways," and to ask whether I'm not glad that musical innovators departed from tradition is insulting. In fact your entire post is insulting, as well as profoundly stupid.


I'm just returning the favor. Besides, you are making an unfounded assertion, since you have said several times that* "We should not get offended because our posts and the ideas we post do not represent us as people."*



> I asked serious questions. Your responses can't be taken seriously. If that's "invalidating," you've earned it.


What's good for the goose...as the old saying goes.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> Playing the flute is a more consistent and defined process.
> Counterpoint turns out to be an attempt to create a systematic way of doing something with lines, which has so many inconsistencies that it is never "mastered" as the above comment on Verdi demonstrates.
> It's a craft that is halfway between a "style" and a method.
> As a method, it is inconsistent and has a lot of variables. It seems better off to me as a "style."
> There are too many glitches in the major & minor diatonic scale in order for any true consistency to be achieved.
> Counterpoint does not really exist as any "real" thing based on real musical principles;
> *it's an ideological construct with no real substance*. You might as well make up your own way of doing it.


The phrase perfectly describes your post.


----------



## millionrainbows

millionrainbows said:


> Counterpoint does not really exist as any "real" thing based on real musical principles;
> it's an ideological construct with no real substance.





EdwardBast said:


> The phrase perfectly describes your post.


Good, because commenting on nothing adds up to nothing. Now let's start a thread about...sonata form! :lol:










P.S. Many times I will "like" a post, even if I don't, just to signal the person that I have seen it. Is this a mortal sin?


----------



## millionrainbows

We could say that "counterpoint" is the study of how to take a consistent form, such as a canon, and then subject it to chord changes which must be accommodated for, thus ruining the symmetry. The symmetry becomes a cognitive process now, and must be learned.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> We could say that "counterpoint" is the study of how to take a consistent form, such as a canon, and then subject it to chord changes which must be accommodated for, thus ruining the symmetry. The symmetry becomes a cognitive process now, and must be learned.


We could say that - if we knew little about counterpoint and had difficulty using musical (and other) terms with any semblance of precision.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> We could say that - if we knew little about counterpoint and had difficulty using musical (and other) terms with any semblance of precision.


That's depressing. Who is this unfortunate person? Should they learn about counterpoint from a book, or from you?


----------



## Guest

Roger Knox said:


> Good one. Counterpoint is a craft learned by the simple-to-complex route. Your never truly learn to do everything. Verdi did counterpoint exercises for his whole his life.


For the sake of keeping "fit" contrapuntally, not because he was deficient, like a lazy fcuker trying to build up muscle.


----------



## Guest

TMHeimer said:


> *Excellent video*. All I recall from my Univ. courses was don't write parallel 4ths, 5ths or octaves.


No, it's not. It's a stupid 12-minute video of criminally limited pedagogical value. Refer to EdwardBast's video on "How to play the recorder" above.


----------



## Guest

Post deleted, not helpful.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> Post deleted, not helpful.


That seems to be the norm.


----------



## millionrainbows

Counterpoint turns out to be an attempt to create a systematic way of doing something with lines, which has so many inconsistencies that it is never "mastered" as the above comment on Verdi demonstrates. 
It's a craft that is halfway between a "style" and a method, and in its strictest form, represents an older way of thinking which was used before 'harmony' and 'harmonic function' had developed.
As a method, it is inconsistent and has a lot of variables. It seems better off to me as a "style," a historical curiosity.

Besides that, now that 'harmony' and 'harmonic function' have developed, we don't need "counterpoint" in its strictest form for general use. It's obvious now that composers can plan-out a harmonic theme and then have moving voices which are treated independently, and achieve similar effects. The ending movement of Mahler's Third is a good example: This is what I call "modern polyphony," where the voices move but you can still hear partitions of chord change. Polyphony doesn't have to sound like Bach.

In Bach's time, there was no "harmonic function," and chords were not thought of in the same way. Figured bass was used, which identified certain voicings, but not 'functions' as we know them. 
This fact was used a while back in the theory forum Baroque "chord progressions" to obfuscate the discussion. It deliberately made the subject of chords more confusing in order to conceal the obvious. The discussion then went down a vortex of definitions on "what is a chord?" when we all know what a chord is.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> This fact was used a while back in the theory forum Baroque "chord progressions" to obfuscate the discussion. *It deliberately made the subject of chords more confusing in order to conceal the obvious.* The discussion then went down a vortex of definitions on "what is a chord?" when we all know what a chord is.


No, most of the discussion in that thread just happened to be above your head, which didn't stop you from interjected thousands of words, most of them off topic.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Counterpoint turns out to be an attempt to create a systematic way of doing something with lines


That description would have puzzled Josquin or Bach. They would have considered counterpoint more of a musical language than an attempt at something.



> It seems better off to me as a "style,"


It's a range of procedures adapted to many styles over hundreds of years. You may as well call melody a "style."



> a historical curiosity.


It seems to have aroused more than curiosity in most of the greatest composers. "Historical" it is (with a very long history). A "curiosity" it isn't.



> Besides that, now that 'harmony' and 'harmonic function' have developed, we don't need "counterpoint" in its strictest form for general use.


What do you mean, "general use"? Who composes for "general use"? Or did you mean "general study by composers"? So no composer, once the idea of "harmonic function" had appeared in the theory books, needed to study counterpoint? Composers seem to have thought otherwise.



> It's obvious now that composers can plan-out a harmonic theme and then have moving voices which are treated independently, and achieve similar effects.


It sounds strange to me to speak of planning one's harmonic progressions and then trying to achieve a contrapuntal "effect." I suppose one could build a composition that way, but I know that when I invent music as an improviser, melody, harmony and polyphony (voices moving in harmonically significant ways) tend to arise together.



> The ending movement of Mahler's Third is a good example: This is what I call "modern polyphony," where the voices move but you can still hear partitions of chord change. Polyphony doesn't have to sound like Bach.


But Bach sounds exactly like that in his chorales. There's a main tune and lots of interesting stuff going on in the other voices, all within a very clear harmonic frame. Counterpoint isn't all canons and fugues. "Modern" may be a relative term, but composers back to the Renaissance were quite capable of "harmonic thinking," and engaged in it all the time, whether they had a theory of harmony or not.



> In Bach's time, there was no "harmonic function," and chords were not thought of in the same way. Figured bass was used, which identified certain voicings, but not 'functions' *as we know them.*


"As we know them." That doesn't mean they aren't there.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck, all of your 'exceptions' are tedious and predictable. Old-style polyphony uses figured bass, which became unwieldy and obsolete as harmony developed and got more complex. That's how it's old-hat. 
I certainly wouldn't start out a student with figured bass, although I had to tolerate it in the antiquated music department I studied at. I later found out it was full of Church of Christ teachers, a kind of good ol' boy system. I guess that's one step up from learning it from nuns.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Woodduck, all of your 'exceptions' are tedious and predictable.


What "exceptions"? Exceptions to what? 900 years of composers writing counterpoint in a myriad of styles hardly constitutes "exceptions."

You're rather predictable too, you know. Every time you post something with the words "harmonic" or "vertical" or "chromatic," I feel as if I've read it fifty times. In fact, I'll just bet I have.



> Old-style polyphony uses figured bass, which became unwieldy and obsolete as harmony developed and got more complex. That's how it's old-hat.


So the bugaboo is figured bass? Is that all? You're in luck! You can write very nice counterpoint without it.



> I certainly wouldn't start out a student with figured bass, although I had to tolerate it in the antiquated music department I studied at. I later found out it was full of Church of Christ teachers, a kind of good ol' boy system. I guess that's one step up from learning it from nuns.


I figured something traumatic must have happened to you. Well, I know what figured bass is and what purpose it served, but I don't even need to know it exists to appreciate beautiful contrapuntal writing, whether it's a Tallis motet or a Wagner overture.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I know what figured bass is and what purpose it served, but I don't even need to know it exists to appreciate beautiful contrapuntal writing, whether it's a Tallis motet or a Wagner overture.


Good, we agree on something. BTW, I never said I didn't 'appreciate' old polyphony; I just think its obsolete as a style and a method.
Why are you wasting your time on my little jabs against counterpoint? I think your talents would be better used discussing the topic of Wagner.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Good, we agree on something. BTW, I never said I didn't 'appreciate' old polyphony; I just think its obsolete as a style and a method.
> Why are you wasting your time on my little jabs against counterpoint? I think your talents would be better used discussing the topic of Wagner.


I can walk and chew gum at the same time. We all have to waste our shelter-in-place time on something. But I don't think that someone's desire to become skilled in counterpoint is a waste of time, if he wants to be a well-equipped composer and wants to be prepared for the day when "conceptual art" and "ambient" music and other such things are yesterday's fashions (for all I know they already are). Musical lines (melodies) and the things that can be made with them have proven pretty appealing and useful.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> Why are you wasting your time on my little jabs against counterpoint?


The better question is why are you taking any jabs against counterpoint.


----------



## Torkelburger

TalkingHead said:


> No, it's not. It's a stupid 12-minute video of criminally limited pedagogical value. Refer to EdwardBast's video on "How to play the recorder" above.


This guy seems to make a habit of making these sorts of videos with very limited pedagogical value, or in the case of his 12-tone music video, factually incorrect which I find totally irresponsible. I posted proof in his comments to that video and he hasn't responded nor re-posted a corrected video. If he had any intellectual integrity of any kind, he would do so. (I'll post a thread about this).


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...if he wants to be a well-equipped composer and wants to be prepared for the day when "conceptual art" and "ambient" music and other such things are yesterday's fashions (for all I know they already are).


Don't forget to include Philip Glass' operas. I saw Akhnaten (1983) on PBS, fascinating.


----------

