# Checking Counterpoint Exercise



## Celloissimo

I am currently studying counterpoint and have progressed so far to Species II in Two Voices. I finished an exercise and have tried polishing up any errors but I feel that there is at least one thing that I have missed. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could examine this. What is currently worrying me are the unisons in bars 6-7.

http://www.noteflight.com/scores/view/3dcb44ef3eee645e626147aa01a5733403b45bd0


----------



## Ramako

I fear you have mistyped a couple of things:

The second minim (G) in the treble in bar 3 makes a fourth, note a fifth with the D in the alto.
I suspect the alto in bar 9 is supposed to be a B. Whether or not it is, however, the intervals with the treble have not been marked correctly.

These are only details though.

In terms of the counterpoint itself, from bar 4 to 5 you move to a perfect consonance with the two voices in direct motion, which is the classic mistake. You are also correct in your worry, in as much as that in two parts it is not 'allowed' to use unisons at all in Species 2 in two parts, which is therefore a problem for both bars 6 and 7.

If in bar 9 the alto is correct as an A, then the G at the beginning of the treble forms a seventh, which would be an incorrectly treated dissonance. If it is supposed to be a B, as I suspect, then the E in the second half of the treble would form a fourth, which would also be an incorrectly treated dissonance. Either way, something is wrong with the bar: there are conventions for the melodic line in forming the cadence which are usually treated in the texts

Regardless of the 'correctness' of the counterpoint, the melodic line does not always convince me. It is usually good to form as smooth a line as possible, which means using stepwise motion as possible. The second to last bar in the treble also should sound the raised seventh if this forms a minor 3rd with the treble, as it does in this mode.

Fear not: all are such 'errors' as you will get used to not making before particularly long


----------



## Yardrax

Ramako said:


> In terms of the counterpoint itself, from bar 4 to 5 you move to a perfect consonance with the two voices in direct motion, which is the classic mistake. You are also correct in your worry, in as much as that in two parts it is not 'allowed' to use unisons at all in Species 2 in two parts, which is therefore a problem for both bars 6 and 7.


"The unison on the strong accent is permissible only on the first and the last notes of the cantus firmus. In the remainder of the counterpoint, however, it may also be used on the unaccented portion of the measure. It should be noted in this connection that it is best that the unison introduced by skip be quitted by conjunct motion in the opposite direction..." - Knud Jeppesen, Counterpoint

In other words, whether or not the OP's procedure is unacceptable depends on who you listen to.

One of the problems with doing species counterpoint is that no-one quite agrees on what exactly the rules are beyond certain basic principles like contrary motion is preferred, end with a cadence, no parallel or hidden fifths. The question really is what you are trying to achieve. If the original poster is doing species counterpoint for a course with a university or a teacher it is essential for them to follow the rules laid down by whoever is instructing them if they want to get a good mark. On the other hand if they are attempting to learn the Palestrina-era polyphonic style then it is not so important for them to follow a specific set of rules as to understand the concerns that underlined that era of contrapuntal practice and to familiarise themselves with the work of masters.

Probably the most important rule to follow when attempting species counterpoint is to sing all your lines and play them against the cantus firmus played on the instrument of your choice (Wind instruments are, for obvious reasons, not so great for this although could work if played by a friend). The 16th century polyphonic style is defined by the fact that it was almost exclusively _sung_ and many of the rules exist as a means to make the music easily singable (For example, augmented and diminished intervals are harder to sing as are sevenths, which is why they are excluded as melodic intervals).


----------



## Celloissimo

Thanks for the feedback! These explanations are a lot more lucid to me than the source I'm learning from and will definitely be referred back to.

I cleaned up the counterpoint and made a new melody against the cantus firmus:

http://www.noteflight.com/scores/view/3dcb44ef3eee645e626147aa01a5733403b45bd0

The melodic structure isn't the best in my opinion, but I'm more concerned with getting the counterpoint right at the moment.


----------



## Yardrax

You're right about the melodic structure, it seems to meander around without reaching a definite climax. I don't know why you say that you are more concerned with getting the counterpoint right than the melody though. The seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding, the study of counterpoint is largely the study of melody. In order to reach a degree of independence from the cantus firmus the contrapuntal part needs to have it's own melodic arch with a clear logic to it. Following the rules about consonance and dissonance in a pedantic way is pointless and ends up with the exercises becoming more a study in harmony than counterpoint.

Also, on a practical level, solutions to exercises in third species which don't take account of the integrity of the melodic line are usually gut wrenchingly bad.

An exercise you can do is to write melodies utilising only a single note value (Either whole, half or quarter notes) without a cantus firmus, simply focusing on writing something with a good melodic arch and a definite peak. Other than that, try again and this time focus on the melodic as well as the harmonic aspects. Try and find multiple solutions as well, I had a go at this on my own and it took me four passes before I was satisfied with the end result.

EDIT: One more thing, it's not so good to introduce the leading tone of the cadence with a skip from below. Moving by step from below is usually alright, except in the Aeolian mode the movement F to G# would be an augmented interval. Try and approach the leading tone by step from above. Skipping down from B is also an acceptable procedure.


----------



## Novelette

I think that you should more closely familiarize yourself with the rules of this species of counterpoint.

The accented portion of the measure should only have consonance [perfect or imperfect]; while the second, unaccented portion can have either consonance or dissonance. Parallel perfects are prohibited by this style; accented parallels are tricky things: they usually create a harsh sound which cannot entirely be masked. While Jeppesen would cautiously allow the intervention of the third in the interim [in extreme circumstances], it is something that I have very rarely noticed in Palestrina's music. Use of the sixth to intervene has a more ameliorative effect but care must be taken that only the minor sixth may be used in upward skips.

Measure two begins with a perfect fifth C-G. A major sixth passing tone dwells in the unaccented portion. The third measure begins happily on a minor sixth of D-B. The passing tone is a perfect fifth, so far so good. The fourth measure begins on a major third; the unaccented portion of which goes to a perfect fifth, which leads in a parallel manner to another perfect fifth, which is prohibited by the style: D-G to E-A cannot be done.

The unaccented portion of this same measure features a perfect fourth D-G; perfect fourths are held as dissonances in this style and must always be quitted by conjunct motion, which would give a motion of A - G - F. Clearly this cannot be done as doing so would create a prohibited minor second, and on the accented part no less. As it stands now, the beginning of the measure, as you have it, is yet another perfect fifth. As I said before, successive accented perfect fifths are allowed by Jeppesen [although, notably prohibited by Cherubini], but I have very rarely encountered this movement in Palestrina:

My advice with this would be to use successive accented fifths very, very sparingly and only when there's no other way out. The interval in between them should not be a third, as the effect is too insignificant to ameliorate the harshness of the fifths. Rather, you should use the interval of the sixth in the interim. Take care, though, only minor sixths are allowed in upward jumps. Upward major sixths are too great a leap and are prohibited by the style.

And so on and so forth...

Yardrax is spot on about the cadential movement. This style of counterpoint is notable for its serenity and grace. Cadences terminate a work on the tonic, which is, one can say, the point of rest. A cadence in this style should be graceful and calm, landing gently and surely. The upward jump from E to the leading tone of G# gives an awkward impression, as though the ending was coming haphazardly. Such cadences should always be approached from above. Yardrax's suggestion of B-G#-A is really the only solution here. As the cantus firmus' penultimate tone is B, you would have to put the counterpoint on B too. To place it in A would be prohibited as sevenths, _qua_ dissonances, can never be placed on the accented portion of a measure, and would have to exist as a conjunct passing tone between the prior and posterior tones.

Keep at it! These exercises are vital!


----------



## Yardrax

With regards to the cadence, I had been under the impression that it was acceptable to use a whole note in the second to last measures. Jeppesen actually says that the third to last measure can also be a whole note, though his example completions only use the whole note on the second to last measure. If the G# in the second to last bar is given the rhythmic value of a semibreve then it's possible to use the formula A-G#-A at the cadence.

I seemed to remember Fux admitting the same thing but checking back it seems that Gradus admits no such exception.


----------



## Novelette

Yardrax said:


> With regards to the cadence, I had been under the impression that it was acceptable to use a whole note in the second to last measures. Jeppesen actually says that the third to last measure can also be a whole note, though his example completions only use the whole note on the second to last measure. If the G# in the second to last bar is given the rhythmic value of a semibreve then it's possible to use the formula A-G#-A at the cadence.
> 
> I seemed to remember Fux admitting the same thing but checking back it seems that Gradus admits no such exception.


You're absolutely right, Yardrax. Using a whole tone in the penultimate measure is not only allowed, but it's almost the normative choice.

As for the third measure, you will see this used frequently enough in the style, but with such a small exercise, I would hesitate to use it unless absolutely necessary. With longer exercises, I wouldn't hesitate to use it if the music permits.


----------



## bagpipers

i could not access the link.i dont know if it was score or music download or what.
that being said,no conductor or musician or ensamble ever plays any tonal modern music anyway.so dont worry about improper use of disonance.


----------



## Mahlerian

bagpipers said:


> i could not access the link.i dont know if it was score or music download or what.
> that being said,no conductor or musician or ensamble ever plays any tonal modern music anyway.so dont worry about improper use of disonance.


That's no excuse for poor writing, which is bad in any style you choose. There's a reason Schoenberg taught all his students traditional harmony and counterpoint. They instill good habits that will work to guide one in difficult compositional decisions.


----------



## bagpipers

thats depends on the music's integrity.brahms was accused of improper use of disonance.beethoven himself said he never wrote a proper fugue,he wrote great music in fugue form but not a proper fugue.

define disonance,bartok and stravinsky would not be considered disonant compared to schoenberg.
the paralell 5th rule.paralell 5th's were not seen as hollow or empty in mid evil times."to go to the 5th was considered a temptation of satan


----------



## Mahlerian

bagpipers said:


> thats depends on the music's integrity.brahms was accused of improper use of disonance.beethoven himself said he never wrote a proper fugue,he wrote great music in fugue form but not a proper fugue.
> 
> define disonance,bartok and stravinsky would not be considered disonant compared to schoenberg.
> the paralell 5th rule.paralell 5th's were not seen as hollow or empty in mid evil times."to go to the 5th was considered a temptation of satan


How does any of this relate to my post? I didn't use the word dissonance even once...

To my ears, Bartok's dissonances (especially in works like the 1st Piano Concerto or The Miraculous Mandarin) are much more flagrantly dissonant than most of Schoenberg (except a few extreme examples like Erwartung), with all of those parallel minor 2nds and tritones. In any event, perceived dissonance has much to do with harmonic expectations and such, so any music one isn't used to (like foreign traditional musics) can sound "dissonant" at first hearing. The dissonances in Bartok's music are often spice derived from the eccentricities of the modal folk material he used, whereas Schoenberg's dissonances are usually derived from two or more motifs/contrapuntal lines moving freely against one another. Whichever one is more foreign to the listener's experience will sound more dissonant, I suppose.

Anyway, you're right that the rules have changed over time, but that hasn't stopped people from learning about modal counterpoint ala Palestrina or sonata form ala Mozart. These things can still inform our music today, as they have the music of the previous century.


----------



## Bix

bagpipers said:


> i could not access the link.i dont know if it was score or music download or what.
> that being said,no conductor or musician or ensamble ever plays any tonal modern music anyway.so dont worry about improper use of disonance.


That's just like me saying to newly qualified nurses 'don't worry about how to use a sphygmomanometer and stethoscope to take blood pressure, we've got machines for that'. Goodness it would be awful for people to learn how to do things properly.


----------



## bagpipers

i dont know.it looks imposible to add to this without accessing the link.
there are many schools of comp theory,im am not sure the original poster was wrong in puting a disonant chord on the accented beat.
i do that all the time


----------



## Ramako

It doesn't have to be 'wrong' in a composition (in which 'wrong' may mean nothing at all, or even be something positive).

But something can be very definitely wrong in a counterpoint exercise.


----------



## bagpipers

Ramako said:


> It doesn't have to be 'wrong' in a composition (in which 'wrong' may mean nothing at all, or even be something positive).
> 
> But something can be very definitely wrong in a counterpoint exercise.


i guess that is right.i do composition exercises mostly as part of my music.
in a concerto i am working on i decided to write my first ever double fugue.which is a daunting task or at least to write a good one.music out of the picture what person with basic knowledge of math couldnt write the most complex of counterpoint with a pencil and paper.the entire movement of course wasnt a perfect double fugue and it wasnt my intention for it to be.but by using the double fugue as a form and structure for serious music it was good music and education.i do recycle material and as soon as i realize a work isnt good enough to be played on a worldly stage i rework it into something else.
the best thing i can say to new composers is write lots of short piano pieces or songs.i write lots of piano pieces,composer walter chesnut jr writes lots of songs(and is constantly bugging famous singers on twitter to sing them).make your piano etudes or preludes or songs your exercises and what you learn from them create larger scale works.and then say once every 5 years evaluate them and decide if there good enough for a song cycle or book of etudes,if not rework the core themes into something else better.and etudes dont have to be real teaching pieces,i once wrote 7 etudes for guitar and my classical guitar friend not disliking the music but said sarcasticly "what are you etuding".but what music doesnt teach you something right.

another thing is your choice of music you play for fun or to entertain friends.what composer has time to play a beethoven piano sonata well so maybe like bach's well tempered klavier is a great choice for contrapuctal education.if your given composition exercises because your a composition student studing with someone thats good,but doing them on your own and getting internet evaluation(not that the people here are not smart)could even be harmfull.it would be like using webmd.com only and not seeing a physician or going to self help websites and seeing a talk therapist.

like i said our computer blocked the link and i dont know the original poster personaly so its just my 2 cents which doesnt get much online respect because my spelling and grammer are behond horible


----------

