# Counterpoint vs Harmony Theory



## Minona

Hello... I'm very interested to hear your views on the 'counterpoint vs functional harmony theory' debate... which is overwhelmingly being won in academic establishments by the 'harmony-ists'.

It is known that the Bach family (and the 'Bach school' for that matter) rejected Rameau's theories (although Kirnberger did try to reconcile it with figured bass). Figured bass is of course in-line with counterpoint, not harmony theory.

There is also no evidence that Haydn, Mozart, Hummel, Beethoven, or Cherubini were in the slightest bit influenced by Rameau's principles ...except in the more superficial sense via French composers who applied his methods (via 'Galante' style favored by C.P.E Bach, who's treatise was studied and taught by the above composers). 

Mozart even mocked Abbe George Joseph Vogler's treatise which was based on Rameau's method: "...his book is more useful for teaching arithmetic than teaching composition".

Yet their works are now almost exclusively analysed in the vertical 'chord at a time' perspective with Roman numerals. 

Finally, the whole acoustic theory behind 'fundamental bass' has long been debunked. There is simply no good acoustical or musical reason to regard chords built on major scale-tone roots to be regarded as I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, viio, at all.

I'm probably a bit optimistic in getting a constructive debate out of this, but anyway...


----------



## PetrB

Common practice theory is but a brief episode in music history, and the notion of it came well after the fact of about half of the Common Practice period was already past!

Though I learned theory ala 'chord function,' all through my undergrad training in those harmony courses, we heard the following often enough it could be a mantra.
*"Good counterpoint is good harmony. Good harmony is good counterpoint."*

There is, I think, a whole lotta truth in that.

When theory is taught as naught but melody and vertical chords / harmony (and that very watered down quasi contrapuntal thing us Yanks call "voice leading," unless the student goes much more horizontal thinking on their own... well, I think that is responsible for a lot of highly banal or uninteresting music. (I.e. I tend to think no matter which approach you take, it should be 'all lines' and not a tune or theme over chunka chunka chord progressions._ One does not have to be a counterpoint nutter or purist to still come up with something a bit more than a tune, motif, and a bunch of chords._

I kinda wince when I hear music spoken of as thought to be 'melody' 'chords,' harmony, and I'm agin (very much) thinking in terms of 'chord progressions,' -- at least initially -- thinking whatever your musical idea, it should come to you "all of those elements in play all at once."

Melody is hugely over-rated; a lyric quality to any part is very under-emphasized. 
Chord progression is also hugely over-rated (and emphasized,) instead of coming up with harmony stemming from the consequence of multiple horizontal activities.

[But this is easy for me to think and say: my very first piano lessons in childhood were an anthology of Bach (Anna Magdalena notebook pieces and a few others) and Bartok's Microkosmos, which I'm certain hugely influenced me to listen and think horizontally, regardless of the style. To my way of thinking, the best beginning anyone could have, but it is 'what I know,' and has become my preference and bias... (and yet I love Rameau -- go figure 

AD P.s. there are educators who advocate first learning modal counterpoint, then tonal counterpoint, then the rest, i.e. in chronological order as they happened, and I can very much see the sense of that. I think if a school used that sequence and it was advertised in its catalogue, many a beginning student would avoid it. The other sequence which makes as much sense to me, also advocated by some, is start with contemporary harmony and work back in time. I think neither one is 'sexy' as far as selling people on those learning plans, though


----------



## Freischutz

I'd be interested to have a discussion, but you'll have to teach me a little first, or at least provide me with some explanatory links (it's not obvious where to go on Wikipedia).

My semi-layman's understanding, which I can only suppose is wrong based on what you've said, was that counterpoint is a description of the interaction of harmonious but otherwise independent melodic voices (and therefore a compositional technique), whereas functional harmony is a tool for the analysis of pieces of music, so on that basis, I can't understand in what way they are in competition because they seem to be doing two totally separate things...

I also don't quite understand what you mean by suggesting that there is no acoustic or musical reason to think of chords as I, ii, iii etc. because I believe this is still the basis of common practice theory, so why is it being taught if it's wrong?


----------



## Minona

PetrB said:


> *"Good counterpoint is good harmony. Good harmony is good counterpoint."*
> 
> There is, I think, a whole lotta truth in that.


Well, I'm thinking more of the approach really. I get the feeling that, had Rameau never written the treatise Fundamental Bass, composition and music theory would have been far better off... no need for Schenker even to argue his point, no confusing theories and Roman/Jazz chord symbols with no real acoustic basis, no need for eyes to glaze over at Roman numeral analyses, etc.


----------



## EdwardBast

PetrB said:


> Common practice theory is but a brief episode in music history, and the notion of it came well after the fact of about half of the Common Practice period was already past!


The common practice period spanned at least 250 years. Do you consider this a brief episode?


----------



## PetrB

Minona said:


> Well, I'm thinking more of the approach really. I get the feeling that, had Rameau never written the treatise Fundamental Bass, composition and music theory would have been far better off... no need for Schenker even to argue his point, no confusing theories and Roman/Jazz chord symbols with no real acoustic basis, no need for eyes to glaze over at Roman numeral analyses, etc.


Frankly, I think those who think there is "an acoustic basis" as some fundamental truth for "what is good music" are deluded, if not a nutter


----------



## PetrB

EdwardBast said:


> The common practice period spanned at least 250 years. Do you consider this a brief episode?


Relatively, yes, I do. We are now nearly one hundred and thirty years into post common practice (1890 to present) and there were centuries before of formalized classical music if not including the 1100's, certainly by the time of de Machaut, the 1300's. Further, there was no such thing in Bach's time, His son's era, Mozarts lifetime, Beethoven's lifetime, etc. the notion of it is a construct generalization made in retrospect when "music history" was born.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Relatively, yes, I do. We are now nearly one hundred and thirty years into post common practice (1890 to present) and there were centuries before of formalized classical music if not including the 1100's, certainly by the time of de Machaut, the 1300's. Further, there was no such thing in Bach's time, His son's era, Mozarts lifetime, Beethoven's lifetime, etc. the notion of it is a construct generalization made in retrospect when "music history" was born.


Without getting into what "common practice" means, I think it's apparent that most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal." And music remained so until tonality was weakened in the late 19th century and some new directions entirely were taken around the turn of the 20th century. To the extent such directions prevailed, broad interest in "classical music" seems to have declined. I find it hard to believe that some can deny this, though they seem to do so.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Counterpoint gives you an early composition method (what, How), harmony gives you an early general guide (where, When, Why). Of course it is easier to differentiate than to integrate properly. The actual principles are the same.

; I support the chronological approach.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Without getting into what "common practice" means, I think it's apparent that most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal." And music remained so until tonality was weakened in the late 19th century and some new directions entirely were taken around the turn of the 20th century. To the extent such directions prevailed, broad interest in "classical music" seems to have declined. I find it hard to believe that some can deny this, though they seem to do so.


This is denied because it is wrong. Modal music is not tonal. Post-common practice tonalities of the 20th century are not tonal in any way that would be meaningful in (common practice) tonal terms.

Of course, one can call all of these things tonal if one wishes, but then there's no real reason to call expressionist and serial music "non-tonal", and _all_ music is tonal.

Which is fine by me. The music of Schoenberg and Boulez sounds tone-centric to me.


----------



## Minona

PetrB said:


> Frankly, I think those who think there is "an acoustic basis" as some fundamental truth for "what is good music" are deluded, if not a nutter


Well, then there is no reason to label of chords in terms of them being built on scale degrees then, and therefore their supposed 'function' is explainable in terms of lines.



Richannes Wrahms said:


> Counterpoint gives you an early composition method (what, How), harmony gives you an early general guide (where, When, Why). Of course it is easier to differentiate than to integrate properly. The actual principles are the same.


Not true at all! The Bach school (which was practiced by common practice composers mentioned (via CPE Bach's famous keyboard treatise) is fundamentally different.

Certainly, CPE Bach and his father were acquainted with Rameau's theory, but they completely disagreed with it. (This was made known in a letter to Kirnberger, cited in his Kunst des reinen Satzes: "You may proclaim that my and my deceased father's basic principles are contrary to Rameau's.")

For example, all chords that contain sevenths are treated successively in Bach's approach. They are the chord of the seventh, the seven-six, the seven-four, and the seven-four-two chords. Although only the first of these is a chord in the Rameau sense, all are chords in Bach's sense.

Rameau's method was based on a false acoustical notion, and leaves us with no reason to think of chords in his categories. Of course, it's usually possible (though certainly not with Bach's modal chorales, for example) to label harmony in that way, and then add all kinds of alterations and rules for exceptions, etc. But it's absurd.



Richannes Wrahms said:


> I support the chronological approach.


You mean counterpoint?


----------



## millionrainbows

Minona said:


> Hello... I'm very interested to hear your views on the 'counterpoint vs functional harmony theory' debate... which is overwhelmingly being won in academic establishments by the 'harmony-ists'.
> 
> It is known that the Bach family (and the 'Bach school' for that matter) rejected Rameau's theories (although Kirnberger did try to reconcile it with figured bass). Figured bass is of course in-line with counterpoint, not harmony theory.
> 
> There is also no evidence that Haydn, Mozart, Hummel, Beethoven, or Cherubini were in the slightest bit influenced by Rameau's principles ...except in the more superficial sense via French composers who applied his methods (via 'Galante' style favored by C.P.E Bach, who's treatise was studied and taught by the above composers).
> 
> Mozart even mocked Abbe George Joseph Vogler's treatise which was based on Rameau's method: "...his book is more useful for teaching arithmetic than teaching composition".
> 
> Yet their works are now almost exclusively analysed in the vertical 'chord at a time' perspective with Roman numerals.
> 
> Finally, the whole acoustic theory behind 'fundamental bass' has long been debunked. *There is simply no good acoustical or musical reason to regard chords built on major scale-tone roots to be regarded as I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, viio, at all.
> *
> I'm probably a bit optimistic in getting a constructive debate out of this, but anyway...


Minona, see my blog _*Harmonic Function *_on p. 9 of my blogs.

Here is the relevant excerpt, which explains how "chordal harmonic function" is, indeed, based on acoustic factors, which are derived from the vertical tonal hierarchy of "all things relate to 1" or the tonic note. All subsidiary chordal functions are ratios of this, and these ratios are based on sonance. Sonance (consonance or dissonance) is based on the acoustic harmonic model of a fundamental tone and its subsidiary overtones, or ratios.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Most dissonant intervals to most consonant intervals, within one octave:

1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
3. major second (C-D) 8:9
4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
6. major third (C-E) 4:5
7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
10. octave (C-C') 1:2
11. unison (C-C) 1:1

The steps of our scale, and the "functions" of the chords built thereon, are the direct result of interval ratios, all in relation to a "keynote" or unity of 1; the intervals not only have a dissonant/consonant quality determined by their ratio, but also are given a specific scale degree (function) and place in relation to "1" or the Tonic. This is where all "linear function" originated, and is still manifest as ratios (intervals), which are at the same time, physical harmonic phenomena.

One (1:1) is the ultimate consonance.

The interval ratios in the chart above, to the right, are just a way of expressing the relationship of two notes. For example, 2:1 is the octave, or doubling of frequency; conversely, 1:2 halves it.

In the key of C, a simple 1-3-5 G triad is not identical to the simple 1-3-5 C triad, because of its position (functioning as V) in relation to the root. They are major triads and are equally dissonant. The functional difference is only apparent once tonic has been established. Tonic is established correctly once the listener has heard and connected (COGNITIVELY) the series of intervals that constitute the diatonic scale.

No chord exists in isolation, but all exist in relation to "1", unity, or tonic.

Implicit in any harmonic interval, whether it be 2:3 or 3:4, is an implicit relation, and specific note-position in the hierarchy, in relation to "1" or tonic, as well as its being more dissonant or more consonant in relation to "1" or the root.

_______________________________________________________________________________

You can see in the above chart how the "functional importance" of each chord is directly related to its sonance in relation to I or tonic: most important, of course, is I (1:1), then 2:3 (V), next in importance is 3:4 (IV), and so on. This is the "hierarchy of importance" based on sonance.

I hope this helps. I invite you to read my blogs; there's a lot of food for thought.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> This is denied because it is wrong. Modal music is not tonal.


Note: Mahlerian is using a strict academic definition of "modal" which is needlessly confusing, and only relevant to academics. The fact is, all "modal" folk musics are "tone-centric" and are therefore tonal, in the broad, inclusive sense of the term.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

In terms of principles I wasn't referring to Rameau's "generalized and manageable" theory of harmony, but of the principles behind vertical intervallic constructions.


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> Note: Mahlerian is using a strict academic definition of "modal" which is needlessly confusing, and only relevant to academics. The fact is, all "modal" folk musics are "tone-centric" and are therefore tonal, in the broad, inclusive sense of the term.


I thought that tonal music was just a part of modality with the two major and minor scales being the ionian and aeolian modes...


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Without getting into what "common practice" means, I think it's apparent that most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal." And music remained so until tonality was weakened in the late 19th century and some new directions entirely were taken around the turn of the 20th century. To the extent such directions prevailed, broad interest in "classical music" seems to have declined. I find it hard to believe that some can deny this, though they seem to do so.


Wow, are you off point re: counterpoint vs. common practice theory and 'chord function.'


----------



## PetrB

millionrainbows said:


> Note: Mahlerian is using a strict academic definition of "modal" which is needlessly confusing, and only relevant to academics. The fact is, all "modal" folk musics are "tone-centric" and are therefore tonal, in the broad, inclusive sense of the term.


The OP is pretty strictly academic: I see no reason to stray, water it down, etc.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Wow, are you off point re: counterpoint vs. common practice theory and 'chord function.'


Possibly. I'm unsure whether you're saying my post was irrelevant, that it was incorrect, or simply that you wish it weren't true.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Possibly. I'm unsure whether you're saying my post was irrelevant, that it was incorrect, or simply that you wish it weren't true.


My dear esteemed colleague, I said exactly what I meant, that post is completely off the point of the OP, and there is nothing else meant or implied.

If you don't want to talk theory turkey, I can sympathize, since I'm not much in love with talking theory turkey myself.


----------



## KenOC

Agree my post was OT. ...................


----------



## Guest

I really should enter this thread as I do happen to teach harmony and counterpoint at a less than first-rate university somewhere on the European continent. But I ain't tellin', so there! May I just say I consider myself a first-rate _Albrechtsberger_, though I am still waiting for my first 'Beethoven' to turn up. Not sure _what_ I'd do if one ever did turn up. Probably send him/her elsewhere, and pronto.


----------



## tdc

norman bates said:


> I thought that tonal music was just a part of modality with the two major and minor scales being the ionian and aeolian modes...


It depends if you are using the word 'tonality' in the broad sense or the academic sense. Technically tonality is based on the V-I relationship and the 'leading tone' (natural VII), so I believe as far as major/minor scales are concerned only the Ionian, harmonic minor and melodic minor are compatible.


----------



## EdwardBast

PetrB said:


> Relatively, yes, I do. We are now nearly one hundred and thirty years into post common practice (1890 to present) and there were centuries before of formalized classical music if not including the 1100's, certainly by the time of de Machaut, the 1300's. Further, there was no such thing in Bach's time, His son's era, Mozarts lifetime, Beethoven's lifetime, etc. the notion of it is a construct generalization made in retrospect when "music history" was born.


Common practice harmony was established by the late 17th century. It existed in Bach's lifetime, Mozart's lifetime, and Beethoven's lifetime. To state there was no such thing because no one had yet come up with the term is absurd. It is like saying that dinosaurs didn't exist until paleontologists started naming them.


----------



## Mahlerian

norman bates said:


> I thought that tonal music was just a part of modality with the two major and minor scales being the ionian and aeolian modes...


It's the treatment that's important more than the scale. Anyone can tell the difference between a Baroque piece in C major as compared to a Renaissance piece based on a C Ionian scale, because the former is treated tonally and the latter is not.

I only get into theory to the extent that others do, and I am perfectly happy to leave it out of discussions *entirely*. I care about music, and theory by itself has never composed anything worth hearing.


----------



## Chordalrock

Just a quick off-topic remark, but even Dufay back in the 15th century sharpened the subtonic to get a leading tone in cadences. This shows, at the very least, a tendency toward a tonal conception of music already back then.

Scholars of the Renaissance have even gone as far as to say there was no truly "modal era" in classical music, and of course there never was in the sense that some people on this thread seem to believe.


----------



## aleazk

EdwardBast said:


> Common practice harmony was established by the late 17th century. It existed in Bach's lifetime, Mozart's lifetime, and Beethoven's lifetime. To state there was no such thing because no one had yet come up with the term is absurd. It is like saying that dinosaurs didn't exist until paleontologists started naming them.


Theories are abstractions of real things... the dinosaurs not, they were very real...

Yes, there were some things that were often used by composers at that time... but the abstraction and packaging of these abstractions in a theory is something that is made... theory and reality shouldn't be identified...

Even in science, what actually existed is the fact that the apple falls from the tree to the ground. Newton made abstractions from that and formulated his theory of gravitation... but the theory is just an idealization of reality... and, surprise, it was wrong after all...

So, Common practice harmony, newtonian gravitation, etc., pretty much exist only after their names are invented... what is indeed real is the fact that composers used some similar things sometimes and that the apple falls from the tree to the ground.

So, if even in science things are not taken for granted... I think that in something as elusive as art can be PetrB's relativization of the concept is right on the track...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people are often surprised when they see that the composer didn't follow the "rules" in a strict sense... but the thing is that these supposed rules were never mandatory... when Bach, Beethoven, etc. were making "clever" twists in the harmony, they were actually just composing what they wanted... if you come up with a simple theory of things, of course that you will not be able to make sense of those twists... in fact, if tonal harmony were a "god given" thing, we would actually find those twists awful no matter what. The ear craves for more interesting things and that's why we find those twists as something good. Ergo, if we consider Common practice harmony as some kind of scientific theory, like some naive people seem to think, then it has already been falsified . Of course, Common practice harmony is not a scientific theory, it's just a bunch of historical abstractions.

I'm a hard core mathematical physicist (a field of pedantic and strict conceptual precision) and, even with that, sometimes I find both dreadful and ridiculous the way some musicians take music theory so literally, so strict, almost like a biblical revelation... the infamous discussion about the tonality of modal music is an example of this... guys: this is not science, save your stricness for more intersting things (at least from this point of view) and not for things that are after all just cultural constructions like art is... you can compose a very strict piece, using perfectly your beloved principles... but you know what, I'm entitled to say it's simply crap if it doesn't sound good... that's the magic of the subjectivity in art... you don't have that in science, of course...

Music theory should be taught as an aid for composing and analyzing music... sometimes it's useful, but sometimes is a caricature of reality... an aid, no more and no less than that...


----------



## EdwardBast

aleazk said:


> Theories are abstractions of real things... the dinosaurs not, they were very real...
> 
> Yes, there were some things that were often used by composers at that time... but the abstraction and packaging of these abstractions in a theory is something that is made... theory and reality shouldn't be identified...


What abstraction and packaging? Harmonic progression favoring root motion by fifths with clear tonic, dominant and subdominant functions is an objective phenomenon. The terms are descriptive and there is little or no ambiguity about what they mean.



aleazk said:


> So, Common practice harmony, newtonian gravitation, etc., pretty much exist only after their names are invented... what is indeed real is the fact that composers used some similar things sometimes and that the apple falls from the tree to the ground.


Those things composers used in common *are* common practice harmony. They existed before they were described.



aleazk said:


> So, if even in science things are not taken for granted... I think that in something as elusive as art can be PetrB's relativization of the concept is right on the track...


Nothing elusive here. Anyone understanding the concepts can reproduce the progressions, key relations, and voice-leading of Corelli or Handel or Mozart. How their progressions work is considerably clearer than the physiology and metabolic processes of dinosaurs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



aleazk said:


> Some people are often surprised when they see that the composer didn't follow the "rules" in a strict sense... but the thing is that these supposed rules were never mandatory... when Bach, Beethoven, etc. were making "clever" twists in the harmony, they were actually just composing what they wanted... if you come up with a simple theory of things, of course that you will not be able to make sense of those twists... in fact, if tonal harmony were a "god given" thing, we would actually find those twists awful no matter what. The ear craves for more interesting things and that's why we find those twists as something good. Ergo, if we consider Common practice harmony as some kind of scientific theory, like some naive people seem to think, then it has already been falsified . Of course, Common practice harmony is not a scientific theory, it's just a bunch of historical abstractions.


No one who has studied it to any extent thinks common practice harmony is anything like a scientific theory. It is applied grammar and syntax. Only pedantic teachers of classroom harmony think in terms of rules. The rest of us think of principles - flexible ones.



aleazk said:


> I'm a hard core mathematical physicist (a field of pedantic and strict conceptual precision) and, even with that, sometimes I find both dreadful and ridiculous the way some musicians take music theory so literally, so strict, almost like a biblical revelation... the infamous discussion about the tonality of modal music is an example of this... guys: this is not science, save your stricness for more intersting things (at least from this point of view) and not for things that are after all just cultural constructions like art is... you can compose a very strict piece, using perfectly your beloved principles... but you know what, I'm entitled to say it's simply crap if it doesn't sound good... that's the magic of the subjectivity in art... you don't have that in science, of course...


The problem with "the infamous discussion about the tonality of modal music" was not that those conducting it were being "strict" or observing "biblical revelation," it was simply that they didn't understand the defining principles and characteristics of common practice harmony.



aleazk said:


> Music theory should be taught as an aid for composing and analyzing music...


Well you should be very happy then because that is pretty much exactly how it is taught.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

aleazk said:


> sometimes I find both dreadful and ridiculous the way some musicians take music theory so literally, so strict, almost like a biblical revelation...


It is relatively easy to find people who seem to make a living out of pointing out parallel fifths and octaves as if it where the worst unforgivable sin one can commit. I don't even care about parallel octaves or "superfluous doubling of the third" or even if quartal chords "have a root".


----------



## EdwardBast

Richannes Wrahms said:


> It is relatively easy to find people who seem to make a living out of pointing out parallel fifths and octaves as if it where the worst unforgivable sin one can commit. I don't even care about parallel octaves or "superfluous doubling of the third" or even if quartal chords "have a root".


This is where thinking about principles instead of sins and rules is helpful. The reason, in certain styles, that parallel octaves and fifths are avoided is not so much because there is anything inherently offensive about them, it is because of the value that is placed on independence of line in common practice voice-leading and counterpoint. Parallel fifths and octaves undercut such independence. (Parallel thirds and sixths are not problematic because, among other things, these intervals are in two different sizes; note, however, that Zarlino, in his _Instiutione harmoniche_, said that two thirds of the same type were also to be avoided.) This is also why they stand out so obviously. This principle of melodic independence is also why students attempting to master four-part chorale style writing are often advised to seek contrary motion between bass and soprano.


----------



## PetrB

TalkingHead said:


> I really should enter this thread as I do happen to teach harmony and counterpoint at a less than first-rate university somewhere on the European continent. But I ain't tellin', so there! May I just say I consider myself a first-rate _Albrechtsberger_, though I am still waiting for my first 'Beethoven' to turn up. Not sure _what_ I'd do if one ever did turn up. Probably send him/her elsewhere, and pronto.


But you could reveal to us your innate proclivity / preferred - prevalent mode of thought when it comes to the writing or listening of music.

S'il vous plait, Monsieur, pray tell us:
A.) Horizontal
B.) Vertical
C.) Both of the above: Multi-tasker = an amalgam of both simultaneously 

Best regards.


----------



## PetrB

I am reminded of the occasion of a younger composer, perhaps still grad school or lately done with the training, who was bemoaning to Michale Tippet some problem he had set in a piece, and positing all sorts of theoretic aspects as an approach to solving it.

Tippet's response: My dear, just use your ears.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

EdwardBast said:


> This is where thinking about principles instead of sins and rules is helpful. The reason, in certain styles, that parallel octaves and fifths are avoided is not so much because there is anything inherently offensive about them, it is because of the value that is placed on independence of line in common practice voice-leading and counterpoint. Parallel fifths and octaves undercut such independence. (Parallel thirds and sixths are not problematic because, among other things, these intervals are in two different sizes; note, however, that Zarlino, in his _Instiutione harmoniche_, said that two thirds of the same type were also to be avoided.) This is also why they stand out so obviously. This principle of melodic independence is also why students attempting to master four-part chorale style writing are often advised to seek contrary motion between bass and soprano.


Indeed, that is what my first post was about.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> But you could reveal to us your innate proclivity / preferred - prevalent mode of thought when it comes to the writing or listening of music.
> 
> S'il vous plait, Monsieur, pray tell us:
> A.) Horizontal
> B.) Vertical
> C.) Both of the above: Multi-tasker = an amalgam of both simultaneously
> 
> Best regards.


Well, mainly horizontal with serendipitous 'verticalities' as and when they occur along the interstices. I hope that answers your question. Check with Aleazk for further clarification. Only he has the faintest idea of what I might be talking about.
I remain, PetrusB,
Your Loyal Servant,
TH


----------



## PetrB

EdwardBast said:


> Common practice harmony was established by the late 17th century. It existed in Bach's lifetime, Mozart's lifetime, and Beethoven's lifetime. To state there was no such thing because no one had yet come up with the term is absurd. It is like saying that dinosaurs didn't exist until paleontologists started naming them.


What "we" study now is, however, a continually added to and cumulative body of theory extracted from all sorts of works post J.S. Bach (_unless I missed class one day, I don't think Bach ever studied the opening measures of Tristan und Isolde, for example.)_

I should have not been so wildly general or dismissive. Certainly, it has not been thought about exactly the same from one era to the next. The worst texts and teachers cite and dwell upon 'what they did most often' to make pieces work and do not dwell at all on the exceptions: those exceptions become more the rule when you begin to name each and every composer who is highly esteemed and considered 'great.'

More to the point of the OP, as much as you and I recognize theory as a mere tool, not rules, and as flexible as music can be (and is),_ I think it naive to think that even if well taught, a majority_ of students, those done with and graduated from schools and conservatories, and those who are auto-didact _still think of theory as 'a set of rules.'_ Oddly, it appears that many also think if they 'follow the rules,' -- as Aleazk has already said -- that is enough to make their music 'good.'

Creativity cannot really be taught, and I would love to see the statistic on how many who have gone through a complete theory study, at least undergrad, end up using their theoretical training creatively at all. I think for every composer we think of as great, fresh, or remotely creative, that is one person who absorbed theory and used it intuitively, and thereafter banked on their intuition and ear at least as much as their intellect. (Talent and creativity are not part of the textbooks or training, after all.)

All you have to do is look at / listen to a random number of student works, or the compositions of some autodidacts, to disabuse yourself of the idea that only a few of those might actually be using theory as a set of flexible tools vs. rules.

Anyone studying theory to some purpose should learn it thoroughly, just as a carpenter diligently learns what his array of tools can do. _After that, the carpenter's tools are to a degree of interest relative to the table or house which made those tools:_ if the carpenter is at all good, he no longer thinks of which tool to grab for which task, and he also does not think that the tool has only one limited specific use


----------



## EdwardBast

PetrB said:


> I don't think Bach ever studied the opening measures of Tristan und Isolde, for example.)[/I]


Bach did, however, occasionally use chords of the augmented sixth, though not, to my knowledge, with a long chromatic appoggiatura to the third of the chord (Wagner's G#). So I think Bach would have followed the progression well enough - and then probably wondered why the subsequent dominant was left unresolved ;-)


----------



## Chordalrock

I think the goals of writing proper polyphony and writing chordal accompaniment are so different it doesn't make much sense to analyse both using the same tools. I think it's the nature of polyphony -- that it's almost opposed to harmony -- which kept the early Renaissance composers from quickly starting to resemble someone like Mozart. Sometimes in their works different voices would cadence on different notes! One cadencing on C, for example, and another on G. That tells of a wholly polyphonic conception of music as opposed to a harmonic conception. It's natural for polyphonic music to be like that, to not be comprehensible or satisfying from a harmonic point of view.


----------



## aleazk

TalkingHead said:


> Well, mainly horizontal with serendipitous 'verticalities' as and when they occur along the interstices. I hope that answers your question. Check with Aleazk for further clarification. Only he has the faintest idea of what I might be talking about.
> I remain, PetrusB,
> Your Loyal Servant,
> TH


Oh, but monsieur TalkingHead, I rarely have the faintest idea of what you might be talking about!

In any case, I indeed learned the rudiments of common practice harmony and counterpoint when I was a teenager. And I indeed think that these are very valuable tools when used properly. And I indeed have great respect for your profession as music theory teacher. If my post made the impression of something opposite to any of these two last claims, then I apologize, it was certainly not my intention. I may have commited the sin of exaggeration in order to make things to look more obvious. I called for those epistemological pedantries because they seemed relevant for the purpose of the OP, and were made as a complement to PetrB's first post, point by point.


----------



## aleazk

EdwardBast said:


> ...The rest of us think of principles - flexible ones.
> 
> ...Well you should be very happy then because that is pretty much exactly how it is taught.


Excellent then, I'm glad we agree then.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> Oh, but monsieur TalkingHead, I rarely have the faintest idea of what you might be talking about!
> 
> In any case, I indeed learned the rudiments of common practice harmony and counterpoint when I was a teenager. And I indeed think that these are very valuable tools when used properly. And I indeed have great respect for your profession as music theory teacher. If my post made the impression of something opposite to any of these two last claims, then I apologize, it was certainly not my intention. I may have commited the sin of exaggeration in order to make things to look more obvious. I called for those epistemological pedantries because they seemed relevant for the purpose of the OP, and were made as a complement to PetrB's first post, point by point.


Nothing to apologize for at all, no worries.


----------



## millionrainbows

PetrB said:


> I am reminded of the occasion of a younger composer, perhaps still grad school or lately done with the training, who was bemoaning to Michale Tippet some problem he had set in a piece, and positing all sorts of theoretic aspects as an approach to solving it.
> 
> Tippet's response:* My dear,* just use your ears.


The student was male. Why did Tippet address him as "my dear?" Hmmm...nevermind.


----------



## PetrB

TalkingHead said:


> Well, mainly horizontal with serendipitous 'verticalities' as and when they occur along the interstices. I hope that answers your question. Check with Aleazk for further clarification. Only he has the faintest idea of what I might be talking about.
> I remain, PetrusB,
> Your Loyal Servant,
> TH


Aleazk and I are pals, and my vanity, at least, has me liking to think we are also colleagues -- sometimes the conversations we have feel like I am talking to a mirror (it is certainly nice when one does not have to backpedal much or at all to qualify or explain what is underneath or the precedents for what is said)... so, I'm fairly certain that I "catch your drift."


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I couldn't resist....


----------



## PetrB

millionrainbows said:


> The student was male. Why did Tippet address him as "my dear?" Hmmm...nevermind.


British of a certain generation and class bracket often addressed people that way, and anyone older (as mentor / teacher) to the younger was one of those contexts. The gender of the addressee has nothing whatsoever to do with its usage.

To me, it sounds funny, massively class-bound, dated, and seriously affected / pretentious, a bit like calling any and everyone "Darling," Lol.

I might only use it (gender of addressee having nothing to do with it) if I wanted to sound witheringly condescending.


----------



## PetrB

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I couldn't resist....


Great piece, but

But, I can not (literally) abide that composer's music, not any of it... really. 
I can not speak for Aleazk re: Tchaikovsky.

If it is announced as about to be played on the radio, or if it is playing mid-stream when I turn on the radio, the radio is shut of as hastily as possible -- I have never owned a recording of anything by Tchaikovsky either.

So, yeah, I can resist, thank you very much.

ADD P.s. More appropriate, and as far as I know not yet written, would be the passionate _Bromance Overture._


----------



## Headphone Hermit

PetrB said:


> British of a certain generation, and class bracket often addressed people that way, and anyone older (as mentor / teacher) to the younger was one of those contexts. The gender of the addressee has nothing whatsoever to do with its usage.
> 
> To me, it sounds funny, massively class-bound, dated, and seriously affected / pretentious, a bit like calling any and everyone "Darling," Lol.
> 
> I might only use it (gender of addressee having nothing to do with it, If I wanted to sound witheringly condescending.


Well, Sweetie, I entirely agree that it can be unsettling when a large, male, middle aged shopkeeper calls me (a middle-aged man) 'Love', but it appears to be within the spectrum of social intercourse in parts of Yorkshire (and possibly elsewhere too!)

You see, Flower, surely it depends on who uses it and how it is used. I agree, Ducks, that some terms can look very peculiar when taken out of context, but My Friend, it can be the lubricant that makes social contact a little easier. Of course, Old Bean, some are a trifle more archaic than others, whilst others are unsuited for people of my generation, Matey Boy. As a middle-aged man, Old Chap, I can now get away with using all manner of hitherto unsuitable terms, such as 'Gorgeous', 'Sunshine', 'Pet', 'Poppett' etc etc :devil:


----------



## PetrB

Headphone Hermit said:


> Well, Sweetie, I entirely agree that it can be unsettling when a large, male, middle aged shopkeeper calls me (a middle-aged man) 'Love', but it appears to be within the spectrum of social intercourse in parts of Yorkshire (and possibly elsewhere too!)
> 
> You see, Flower, surely it depends on who uses it and how it is used. I agree, Ducks, that some terms can look very peculiar when taken out of context, but My Friend, it can be the lubricant that makes social contact a little easier. Of course, Old Bean, some are a trifle more archaic than others, whilst others are unsuited for people of my generation, Matey Boy. As a middle-aged man, Old Chap, I can now get away with using all manner of hitherto unsuitable terms, such as 'Gorgeous', 'Sunshine', 'Pet', 'Poppett' etc etc :devil:


I haven't thought of all the various American like terms and like usage, but visit the country, go to an old fashioned diner, sit at the counter, and the waitress will ask you, "_What would you like, honey_." 

And you are correct, once you have the age on you, if not forgiven, people will just accept all sorts of oddities from you which would never have passed muster when you were in your twenties. Sometimes you can get away with quite a lot :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

PetrB said:


> I haven't thought of all the various American like terms and like usage, but visit the country, go to an old fashioned diner, sit at the counter, and the waitress will ask you, "_What would you like, honey_."
> 
> And you are correct, once you have the age on you, if not forgiven, people will just accept all sorts of oddities from you which would never have passed muster when you were in your twenties. Sometimes you can get away with quite a lot :lol:


Thanks for clearing that up, _my little prairie rose. _:lol:

Yeah, I've been watching some old British cinema from the 50's, like *The League of Gentlemen,* and a guy is addressing everyone as 'darling.'


----------



## Minona

Yeah Cheers. That's cleared that up. Anyway, who'd win in a fight Beethoven or Wagner? ;-)


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock said:


> I think the goals of writing proper polyphony and writing chordal accompaniment are so different it doesn't make much sense to analyse both using the same tools.


I think if a body comes from first liking pop music, or listening to, say, Peer Gynt, then that body might just think the sort of thought you set up above.


----------



## PetrB

Minona said:


> Yeah Cheers. That's cleared that up. Anyway, who'd win in a fight Beethoven or Wagner? ;-)


From all biographic info, it seems Wagner was not, like like Beethoven, merely strongly anti-social, but Wagner was instead he stepped over a great many more lines in doing what was needed to ensure he could live and have the time to write and that his works were performed.

By comparison to Wagner, Beethoven was a medieval model of saintly behavior, or a slightly bad boy (selling the same piece as 'exclusive' to two publishers, for example). So, I think Wagner would have no truck with agreeing to any forms of 'rules of engagement,' and would -- with no holds barred -- fight to kill


----------



## vilen

The method of counterpoint is derived apparently from the church polyphony singing (voices). Method of chord progressions ( MP ) was invented by J.Rameau on basis of mystic interpretation of contemporary scientific discoveries. Method of thorough bass may be used in both polyphony music and arose later homophony music, which forced out former one gradually from period from end of 16 century roughly to 1750. Fux ( 1660 -1741) and Rameau (1683 - 1764) worked both in the time when homophony was broadly used and both claimed that derived their theory works from practice. Originally the methods were alike, as they built sequences of vertical structures of notes: counterpoint because of its origin from chorus singing and method of MP because of (now debunked) idea as if some progressions of chords accordingly their fundamental basses provides naturalness and quality of music. Further music practice gradually ignored unnecessary dogmas and provided to MP the dominant position in the established homophony music ( though in music theory MP is presented in mystic form of vague harmony).
In reality MP is composition of melody as progression of sets of notes, which form basic used notes on corresponding segments of music. By it an each set must be able to form corresponding triad without unacceptable dissonances. It is necessary for use of chords by music embellishment and support of temporal ties.
I examined (http://forum.emusictheory.com/read.php?5,13165,13166 ) creating of smooth melodies from notes of diatonic scale with most number of possible variants:
-by change to next set (chord) with successive intervals of 1 or 2 semitones ,
-inside current set with use of 1 passing note by passage to another set's of note,
-thank to ties of different set's notes through strong overtones. 
It was revealed that:
-sets corresponding major and minor triads are best,
-between major triads the triad CEG possess more ties with other triads and most valid to be tonic one;
-analogous for triad ACE between minor triads.

Yuri Vilenkin


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Without getting into what "common practice" means, I think it's apparent that most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal." And music remained so until tonality was weakened in the late 19th century and some new directions entirely were taken around the turn of the 20th century. To the extent such directions prevailed, broad interest in "classical music" seems to have declined. I find it hard to believe that some can deny this, though they seem to do so.





Mahlerian said:


> This is denied because it is wrong. Modal music is not tonal. Post-common practice tonalities of the 20th century are not tonal in any way that would be meaningful in (common practice) tonal terms.
> 
> Of course, one can call all of these things tonal if one wishes, but then there's no real reason to call expressionist and serial music "non-tonal", and _all_ music is tonal.
> 
> Which is fine by me. The music of Schoenberg and Boulez sounds tone-centric to me.


I defend KenOC on this point; and the Harvard Dictionary of Music states that "almost all music is tonal." What does this have to do with anything?


----------



## millionrainbows

Minona said:


> Hello... I'm very interested to hear your views on the 'counterpoint vs functional harmony theory' debate... which is overwhelmingly being won in academic establishments by the 'harmony-ists'.
> 
> It is known that the Bach family (and the 'Bach school' for that matter) rejected Rameau's theories (although Kirnberger did try to reconcile it with figured bass). Figured bass is of course in-line with counterpoint, not harmony theory.
> 
> There is also no evidence that Haydn, Mozart, Hummel, Beethoven, or Cherubini were in the slightest bit influenced by Rameau's principles ...except in the more superficial sense via French composers who applied his methods (via 'Galante' style favored by C.P.E Bach, who's treatise was studied and taught by the above composers).
> 
> Mozart even mocked Abbe George Joseph Vogler's treatise which was based on Rameau's method: "...his book is more useful for teaching arithmetic than teaching composition".
> 
> Yet their works are now almost exclusively analysed in the vertical 'chord at a time' perspective with Roman numerals.
> 
> Finally, the whole acoustic theory behind 'fundamental bass' has long been debunked. There is simply no good acoustical or musical reason to regard chords built on major scale-tone roots to be regarded as I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, viio, at all.
> 
> I'm probably a bit optimistic in getting a constructive debate out of this, but anyway...


The earliest "pre-harmony" was the result of coinciding single-lines. Gradually, these began to be conceived of as vertical chord-entities unto themselves, and thus the bass or root movement of chords became more important and was treated separately.
Early tonality, when this first happened, is weirder and more dissonant, because the rules & procedures of "tonality' had not yet been worked out. Then, when the voice became more important, "homophonic" texture came in (separate voice line on top, with chords on the bottom). Thus opera was born. Opera lovers should be grateful for harmony, in this regard.

So, "tonality" consists of two things: melodic elements (single lines) and harmonic elements (chords).

The counterpoint of the Baroque era came into existence* after *tonality had been established, so it is *not* like the old Gregorian chant line-coincidence. It had harmonic considerations as well; rules which made the single-lines conform to harmonic and root-movement considerations. So counterpoint really goes hand-in-hand with harmonic tonality.

WEhen you say that "...figured bass is of course in-line with counterpoint, not harmony theory...", this is not true. The bass gained importance only after "root movement" of chords (harmonic function) came into being, with harmony.


----------



## PetrB

Minona said:


> ....based on a false acoustical notion.


_there is no such thing as a "false acoustical notion."_, in any scale, in any tuning, in any kind of music. _That_ is truly absurd.


----------



## clavichorder

Minona said:


> Hello... I'm very interested to hear your views on the 'counterpoint vs functional harmony theory' debate... which is overwhelmingly being won in academic establishments by the 'harmony-ists'.
> 
> It is known that the Bach family (and the 'Bach school' for that matter) rejected Rameau's theories (although Kirnberger did try to reconcile it with figured bass). Figured bass is of course in-line with counterpoint, not harmony theory.
> 
> There is also no evidence that Haydn, Mozart, Hummel, Beethoven, or Cherubini were in the slightest bit influenced by Rameau's principles ...except in the more superficial sense via French composers who applied his methods (via 'Galante' style favored by C.P.E Bach, who's treatise was studied and taught by the above composers).
> 
> Mozart even mocked Abbe George Joseph Vogler's treatise which was based on Rameau's method: "...his book is more useful for teaching arithmetic than teaching composition".
> 
> Yet their works are now almost exclusively analysed in the vertical 'chord at a time' perspective with Roman numerals.
> 
> Finally, the whole acoustic theory behind 'fundamental bass' has long been debunked. There is simply no good acoustical or musical reason to regard chords built on major scale-tone roots to be regarded as I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, viio, at all.
> 
> I'm probably a bit optimistic in getting a constructive debate out of this, but anyway...


So, I am being taught at a dauntingly slow pace, theory the "american" way or I guess, in terms of common practice harmony with roman numeral analysis, ect.

When I compose, I usually think in terms of counterpoint and it often happens that what my ear picks up on, coincides with much of what is thought proper in common practice. As I've learned more theory, I think it has helped me in an indirect sort of way, in that I got a sense of what was possible and am in the process of expanding my creative understanding throughout that known boundary.

But sometimes, in class for a theory exercise, I have composed with roman numerals as the starting point and my work has sounded slightly different. It hasn't sounded inorganic or overly blocky but it develops this weird basis in chords that lends it a more classical era/sonatina style rather than my usual baroque or renaissance or Scarlatti esque style. I have used tone rows as starting points in more 20th century style compositions I've made, and have also done more free 20th century style compositions and they are fundamentally different.

Anyway, I don't really know where I'm going with all this, but I am interested in what exactly this counterpoint theory is. I'm assuming the harmony theory wins out generally because, sort of like Newtonian physics as opposed to Relativity or something(I know little about physics, but am just trying to make an analogy, and if Aleazk or Mmslbs take issue with that comparison, I suppose I get what is coming) its more straightforward if less accurate in grappling with the subtleties and more advanced aspects of what is occurring.


----------



## Ludric

clavichorder said:


> Anyway, I don't really know where I'm going with all this, but I am interested in what exactly this counterpoint theory is. I'm assuming the harmony theory wins out generally because, sort of like Newtonian physics as opposed to Relativity or something(I know little about physics, but am just trying to make an analogy, and if Aleazk or Mmslbs take issue with that comparison, I suppose I get what is coming) its more straightforward if less accurate in grappling with the subtleties and more advanced aspects of what is occurring.


Counterpoint as taught in the Baroque period (and even into the Classical period) was not so much a theory as it was a practice. Musicians were taught counterpoint through the method of thorough-bass (also known by other names: basso continuo, generalbass, figured bass, etc.). This was a practical skill which allowed a keyboardist (or lutenist) to improvise a number of voices over a given figured bass line while adhering to the rules of good voice leading and counterpoint. These figured bass lines often accompanied solo or orchestral parts so the keyboardist had to be quite skilled in this art as it required improvising during a performance of the piece. In this sense, the musician gained an intuitive grasp of harmony and voice leading after much practice in the method of thorough-bass.

The main difference between the theory of harmony as proposed by Rameau and that of thorough-bass is that the former thinks of harmony primarily as triads built in relation to the root note of a chord (e.g. a first inversion chord (consisting of a root, third and fifth, with the third in the bass)) while the latter thinks of harmony in terms of intervals over a given bass note (e.g. the intervals of a third and a sixth over an E). In short, Rameau's theory of harmony is theoretical (used mostly for analysis) while the method of thorough-bass is practical (used for improvising parts over a figured bass line).

There were several treatises written on the method of thorough-bass, such as the section on figured bass in C.P.E. Bach's Essay on the True Art of Keyboard Playing, Johann Mattheson's Grosse General-Baß-Schule, and Johann David Heinichen's Der General-Bass in der Composition. The last one is notable in that J.S. Bach sold copies of it out of his house.


----------



## millionrainbows

Minona said:


> ...the whole acoustic theory behind 'fundamental bass' has long been debunked. There is simply no good acoustical or musical reason to regard chords built on major scale-tone roots to be regarded as I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, viio, at all.


I must disagree. See my blogs on this. The functions are related to degrees of dissonance.

http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/millionrainbows/1174-function-harmonic-model-part.html


----------



## millionrainbows

Ludric said:


> The main difference between the theory of harmony as proposed by Rameau and that of thorough-bass is that the former thinks of harmony primarily as triads built in relation to the root note of a chord (e.g. a first inversion chord (consisting of a root, third and fifth, with the third in the bass)) while the latter thinks of harmony in terms of intervals over a given bass note (e.g. the intervals of a third and a sixth over an E). In short, Rameau's theory of harmony is theoretical (used mostly for analysis) while the method of thorough-bass is practical (used for improvising parts over a figured bass line).


That is good! A succinct explanation, which helps me a lot. Is this what was referred to as German vs. French approaches?


----------



## dpwave

KenOC said:


> Without getting into what "common practice" means, I think it's apparent that most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal." And music remained so until tonality was weakened in the late 19th century and some new directions entirely were taken around the turn of the 20th century. To the extent such directions prevailed, broad interest in "classical music" seems to have declined. I find it hard to believe that some can deny this, though they seem to do so.


Speaking in a Western hemispherical musical context I would agree, not as much with Mid-Eastern and Eastern styles though. The world of painting artists in the late 19th century and forward were also involved in those kind of changes, using the Impressionist movement as one example in comparison with Impressionist composers.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Without getting into what "common practice" means, I think it's apparent that most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal." And music remained so until tonality was weakened in the late 19th century and some new directions entirely were taken around the turn of the 20th century. To the extent such directions prevailed, broad interest in "classical music" seems to have declined. I find it hard to believe that some can deny this, though they seem to do so.


That's true, but probably not in the way you think it is. Without getting into what 'tonal' means, or how it is used, I think it's apparent that most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal," although strictly speaking, Gregorian chant is not tonal in any sense, and is not even 'unambiguously tone-centric,' since it sometimes leaves us 'hanging in the lurch' tonally, not ending phrases on the note we thought was tonic, and other vestigial effects of those stiff little, inflexible tetrachords.

What people mean, and what KenOC means, is that old music sounds 'sonorous' and full of delightful harmonic color, and is consonant or less consonant by degree, but is definitely not easily confused with that dissonant stuff that arrived after 1900.

Broad interest in the _living, ongoing, evolving_ tradition of musical thinking and practice we used to call 'classical music' did, indeed seem to decline, and 'classical music' became a 'living museum' of older practices. Beethoven anyone?...While the actual thinking process and creation of such music became relegated to the ivory towers of academia, the New York City loft scene, and vinyl LP cut-out bins of K-Mart.

So, who's right, and who's wrong? Did composers exceed the limits of what the common ear can stand? Just because we can now base an entire composition on principles derived from dissonant sets of notes, should we?

The 'ear' seems to have lost. *Listening to music itself, any music, *is now a dying art. Just listening, I mean. It's like reading. You do it alone, preferably in the dark. "Real" music is to be used in 'real' ways: to dance to, to advertise beef, to accompany more important dramatic action, like TV shows and movies.

Who really needs 'music itself' these days?


----------



## isorhythm

I am not at all sure that most listeners, expert or not, would call Gregorian chant "tonal." Nor Perotin or Machaut, for that matter.


----------



## Mahlerian

isorhythm said:


> I am not at all sure that most listeners, expert or not, would call Gregorian chant "tonal." Nor Perotin or Machaut, for that matter.


How listeners misuse a word doesn't matter, in any event.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> I am not at all sure that most listeners, expert or not, would call Gregorian chant "tonal." Nor Perotin or Machaut, for that matter.


What do you mean by 'tonal?'

Well, however you define it, I didn't say it was tonal. Ken OC's post said "music of a thousand years ago" sounded better than new music of this century. I assumed that included Gregorian chant.

Technicalities aside, a lot of that Gregorian chant could easily be mistaken for being 'tone centric' and droney. You probably mean common practice tonality, not the broader tone-centric definition.

Even in terms of being 'tone centrically tonal,' Gregorian chant sometimes is ambiguous because of the ending notes, often leaving me wondering what the 'central tone' is.


----------



## millionrainbows

> Originally Posted by *isorhythm*: I am not at all sure that most listeners, expert or not, would call Gregorian chant "tonal." Nor Perotin or Machaut, for that matter.





Mahlerian said:


> How listeners misuse a word doesn't matter, in any event.


 I am not at all sure that most listeners, expert or not, would call late Schoenberg "tonal." Nor late Webern or Late Berg, for that matter.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> I am not at all sure that most listeners, expert or not, would call late Schoenberg "tonal." Nor late Webern or Late Berg, for that matter.


Well, many listeners don't call early Schoenberg tonal either. My point stands.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Well, many listeners don't call early Schoenberg tonal either. My point stands.


Okay. What do you think KenOC meant by this? Is he "mis-using" the word tonal? If he is, do you know what he is getting at, anyway? Can you identify the assumption that he is trying to say is a common, status quo attitude?



> Originally Posted by *KenOC*: Without getting into what "common practice" means, I think it's apparent that *most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal."* *And music remained so until tonality was weakened in the late 19th century and some new directions entirely were taken around the turn of the 20th century.* To the extent such directions prevailed, broad interest in "classical music" seems to have declined. I find it hard to believe that some can deny this, though they seem to do so.


----------



## isorhythm

OK, to expand: people who know what they're talking about won't call Gregorian chant "tonal," because it's not.

KenOC was, I think, saying that your average listener without much or any musical education WOULD call Gregorian chant "tonal." I don't actually know if this is true. I suspect it's not.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> OK, to expand: people who know what they're talking about won't call Gregorian chant "tonal," because it's not.
> 
> KenOC was, I think, saying that your average listener without much or any musical education WOULD call Gregorian chant "tonal." I don't actually know if this is true. I suspect it's not.





> Originally Posted by *KenOC*: Without getting into what "common practice" means, I think it's apparent that *most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal."* *And music remained so until tonality was weakened in the late 19th century and some new directions entirely were taken around the turn of the 20th century.* To the extent such directions prevailed, broad interest in "classical music" seems to have declined. I find it hard to believe that some can deny this, though they seem to do so.


So, what do you think is happening here, by KenOC's use of the word "tonal"??

Remember, he said _"...Without getting into what "common practice" means, I think it's apparent...", s_o it's pretty obvious that KenOC is not interested in your correct definition of 'tonality.'

What is he getting at? Does 'tonal' mean 'sonorous' or 'pretty' as he is using the term here?

And surely, if he is advocating a 'status quo' position, he would not consider all those people like him who like older 'tonal' music as_ 'average' _or _'without much or any musical education.'_


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> How listeners misuse a word doesn't matter, in any event.


If as you say, how listeners misuse a word doesn't matter, then what relevant information should we derive from KenOC's statement:



> Originally Posted by *KenOC*: Without getting into what "common practice" means, I think it's apparent that *most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal."* *And music remained so until tonality was weakened in the late 19th century and some new directions entirely were taken around the turn of the 20th century.* To the extent such directions prevailed, broad interest in "classical music" seems to have declined. I find it hard to believe that some can deny this, though they seem to do so.


Mahlerian is saying it 'does not matter in any event' if _listeners_ (representing the status quo) take this position on modern music, and use the term 'tonal' in this way.

If this is correct, then tell me what is being said by KenOC. Can you translate his 'statusquospeak?'

If the views of 'most people' are apparent to him, then surely someone here can explain what this means.

That is, unless it 'doesn't matter' to you enough to elaborate.


----------



## isorhythm

I don't see why this is difficult.

KenOC knows that Gregorian chant is not tonal in the common practice sense. What he said was that it's "apparent" that "most people" would call it tonal. I suspect he's wrong about that, but I'm not sure.

At a certain point this degenerates into semantics. There is no sharp line where common practice tonality appears. If you want to call Palestrina tonal, I won't argue - his music already has many features of the tonality of Bach and Mozart. The boundary is fuzzy.

But when you go back a thousand years, you reach music where many modern listeners pretty reliably find that it "goes nowhere" or ends ends on the "wrong" note. It is not really perceived as tonal, not even in the broadest sense.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> I don't see why this is difficult.
> 
> KenOC knows that Gregorian chant is_ not tonal in the common practice sense._


He does? Then I'd be curious to know: can we call Gregorian chant 'tonal' in any sense of the term? What degree of generality can you, are he, tolerate? Yes, we know that Gregorian chant is not 12-tone or serial, and doesn't sound like Boulez. What do you mean by saying "KenOC knows that Gregorian chant is_ not tonal in the common practice sense."?_



isorhythm said:


> What he said was that it's "apparent" that "most people" would call it tonal. I suspect he's wrong about that, but I'm not sure.


Why are you unsure? You seem to understand his statement enough to explain it. Why would most people call Gregorian chant tonal? Because it sounds unlike modern music? Is there some degree of 'tone-centricity' that makes people mistake it as being tonal?



isorhythm said:


> At a certain point this degenerates into semantics. There is no sharp line where common practice tonality appears. If you want to call Palestrina tonal, I won't argue - his music already has many features of the tonality of Bach and Mozart. The boundary is fuzzy.


But I did not say Palestrina was tonal; I assume that KenOC did, as a result of a generalization which includes Palestrina's music. And, generally speaking KenOC said the demarcation line was after 1900:



> Originally Posted by *KenOC*: Without getting into what "common practice" means, I think it's apparent that *most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal."* *And music remained so until tonality was weakened in the late 19th century and some new directions entirely were taken around the turn of the 20th century.* To the extent such directions prevailed, broad interest in "classical music" seems to have declined. I find it hard to believe that some can deny this, though they seem to do so.





isorhythm said:


> But when you go back a thousand years, you reach music where many modern listeners pretty reliably find that it "goes nowhere" or ends ends on the "wrong" note. It is not really perceived as tonal, not even in the broadest sense.


That seems in direct contradiction to what KenOC said. Do you agree with his statement, or understand it?


----------



## millionrainbows

> Originally Posted by *isorhythm*: I am not at all sure that most listeners, expert or not, would call Gregorian chant "tonal." Nor Perotin or Machaut, for that matter.





Mahlerian said:


> How listeners misuse a word doesn't matter, in any event.





> Originally Posted by *millionrainbows*: I am not at all sure that most listeners, expert or not, would call late Schoenberg "tonal." Nor late Webern or Late Berg, for that matter.





Mahlerian said:


> Well, many listeners don't call early Schoenberg tonal either. My point stands.


But what point? Are listeners are smart enough to say Perotin, Machaut, or Gregorian chant is NOT tonal? Or are they uneducated enough to say it is? And are those same listeners mistaken when they say early Schoenberg is not tonal? Are these 'listeners' that KenOC spoke of stupid, or smart, or do they know something which transcends definitions and makes all the semantics irrelevant? Or are they simply throwing around words to describe music which they are only able to intuitively and viscerally grasp, or like?

Since Mahlerian hears all music as being tonal, are listeners who hear early Schoenberg as 'not tonal' just uneducated? Do you have to be as informed as Mahlerian to recognize early Schoenberg as tonal, or is this just a visceral response on the part of 'average listeners' to be repelled by such music?

And since, as Mahlerian said, he hears all music as tonal, then is there a deficiency on the part of listeners who hear anything as being "not tonal?"

I don't understand anything of what is being said here. It makes no sense.

As I see it, either something "sounds tonal" because it exhibits a certain degree of tone-centricity to the ear, or it does not sound tonal because it does not exhibit this tone-centric effect to the ear to that degree. This would seem to explain what KenOC said, before the waters became clouded with semantics.

Aren't we really arguing about 'subjective impressions' rather than definitions? If so, we will never clarify anything.


----------



## Mahlerian

Intelligence or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. It is simply a matter of whether or not the term is being used in a meaningful and consistent way.

In my experience, people on forums and elsewhere tend to misuse the term tonal simply because they are misinformed as to what it means. They tend to view tonal and atonal as opposites and two disparate poles. This is wrong. Tonality and so-called atonality are merely two parts of the exact same thing: the relation of pitches to each other, based on their innate properties. They use different kinds of relations, to be sure, but the music referred to as atonal is not in any way defined by negation of this or any other thing. Nor is it composed by such.

Given all of the misconceptions about what tonality and post-tonality are, it is not in the least surprising that the terms are consistently misused.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Intelligence or lack thereof has nothing to do with it.


Then it must be based on subjective factors, not on terms which must be used with intelligent understanding if they are to mean anything. Call it 'misuse of terms,' then, not stupidity. I didn't say it was a question of stupidity either; isorhythm did, when he said


> ...people who know what they're talking about won't call Gregorian chant "tonal," because it's not. KenOC was, I think, saying that your average listener without much or any musical education WOULD call Gregorian chant "tonal." I don't actually know if this is true. I suspect it's not.





Mahlerian said:


> It is simply a matter of whether or not the term is being used in a meaningful and consistent way.


I don't think that's the point KenOC was making. Remember, he said:


> Without getting into what "common practice" means, I think it's apparent that *most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal."*


 So, he is not concerned with definitions or their correct use. He seems to be alluding to some sort of 'subjective perception' which he says most listeners possess.



Mahlerian said:


> In my experience, people on forums and elsewhere tend to misuse the term tonal simply because they are misinformed as to what it means. They tend to view tonal and atonal as opposites and two disparate poles. This is wrong.


Are you questioning the validity of the average listener to subjectively know what he likes or dislikes? Because I don't think terminology is the question here. As KenOC said,


> *Without getting into what "common practice" means,* I think it's apparent that *most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal."*





Mahlerian said:


> Tonality and so-called atonality are merely two parts of the exact same thing: the relation of pitches to each other, based on their innate properties. They use different kinds of relations, to be sure, but the music referred to as atonal is not in any way defined by negation of this or any other thing. Nor is it composed by such.


Mahlerian seems to be saying that the music referred to 'as such' is not defined by terms such as tonal or atonal, but by the subjective experience and ears of average listeners, then, as KenOC said. Aren't you?



Mahlerian said:


> Given all of the misconceptions about what tonality and post-tonality are, it is not in the least surprising that the terms are consistently misused.


So if an average listener rejects early Schoenberg as being 'not tonal enough' and is repelled by it, you are saying that this is a misconception? That amounts to calling them 'stupid' or uneducated, doesn't it?

Are we talking about terms, or subjective experience? Mahlerian said


> ...but the music referred to as atonal is not in any way defined by negation of this or any other thing...


Then what are these 'average listeners' KenOC refers to talking about?


> *KenOC*: Without getting into what "common practice" means, I think it's apparent that most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal." And music remained so until tonality was weakened in the late 19th century and some new directions entirely were taken around the turn of the 20th century*.* To the extent such directions prevailed, broad interest in "classical music" seems to have declined. I find it hard to believe that some can deny this, though they seem to do so.


That sounds as if he is alluding to "the negation of tonality" to me. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then chances are, it's a duck.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I would bet most listeners have no idea of tone centricity.


----------



## millionrainbows

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I would bet most listeners have no idea of tone centricity.


It's totally natural to the way your ears hear; totally visceral, not ideas needed. Most folk music, even very primitive music, is developed out of this tendency for players of instruments, or singers, to hear tone-centrically.

*What's confusing is when overly-specific, academic definitions of tonality come up, and cloud the waters.*

Your ears hear harmonically; they hear from 'low to high' on a harmonic model. Pitch has a fundamental frequency, and the harmonics (partials, overtones) are higher.

The same way with chords; if you hear a low tone, with higher pitches above it, that will tend to be heard as the root. When your ear gets trained, you learn the ability to hear inversions, in cases where the bass note is not the root. So this natural tendency of the ear to hear low to high, with the lowest note as root, has to be 'overcome' by training, in most cases.


----------



## SVnotVK

This is a long-living thread on an interesting subject. I've only joined to the forum to be honoured )) to post here a reply regardless of however insignificant it may be taking into account my lack of rhetorical English skills.
I feel I need to share my perception of what KenOC meant by his "*most people would identify music of a thousand years ago as clearly "tonal.*"



millionrainbows said:


> Okay. What do you think KenOC meant by this? Is he "mis-using" the word tonal? If he is, do you know what he is getting at, anyway? Can you identify the assumption that he is trying to say is a common, status quo attitude?


I think from an avearge listener's point of view (or hearing) and that would apply to people not very much concerned with the academic terms such as "tonal music" that music would be a less elaborate subset of the later "mainstream" music that still would sound accessible to the majority of less "advanced" listeners. Many such people would easier accept Gregorian chants rather than sophisticated modern music of the 20th century.

I think what KenOC meant is that if you defined the term of "tonal music" for these less musically-knowledgeable people (and by no means "less intelligent" - many intelligent people have undeveloped musical ear unlike some unintelligent natural ear players) - so if you defined the term of "tonal music" for them in terms of actual comparing (in a listening session) of early music to later music, they would identified the simple Gregorian chant as a less developed subset of a later Common Practice Period music (which for majority of such people, believe me, is known simply as "Classical Music", including the very Gregorian chants).
Maybe they would hear some weirdness of the modal melodic nature of the chants but not to the extent they would identify the lack of tonal center.



millionrainbows said:


> It's totally natural to the way your ears hear; totally visceral, not ideas needed. Most folk music, even very primitive music, is developed out of this tendency for players of instruments, or singers, to hear tone-centrically.
> 
> *What's confusing is when overly-specific, academic definitions of tonality come up, and cloud the waters.*
> 
> Your ears hear harmonically; they hear from 'low to high' on a harmonic model. Pitch has a fundamental frequency, and the harmonics (partials, overtones) are higher.
> 
> The same way with chords; if you hear a low tone, with higher pitches above it, that will tend to be heard as the root. When your ear gets trained, you learn the ability to hear inversions, in cases where the bass note is not the root. So this natural tendency of the ear to hear low to high, with the lowest note as root, has to be 'overcome' by training, in most cases.


That's interesting. So, why did it take so long for the music to become "tonal" (centered to the tonic)? In the times when Gregorian chants were sang did the singers and listeners feel the need to resolve the line on the tonal center? Apparently not - they were quite satisfied to land on the "weird" notes as it was mentioned in this thread (in different terms).

So, what was "natural" to hear for people "back then" was not so natural (or outdated) in later stages of music development?
Put it another way: if you demonstrated a Bach fugue to a listener (or better let's assume, a singer?) of the 'Gregorian chant period' would he think of it as a more "natural" way to conceive music? Or would they simply dismiss such music for the lack of specific "tonal center" listening skillls?

If it's a matter of ear "training" then what other possible musical inventions can be found in the future that will change the perception of music? Or is "tonality" the final ultimate product beyond which all further music development becomes too complicated for the "average listener" who can easily mistake the Gregorian chant for an undeveloped Classical piece?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

This is the Counterpoint vs Harmony Theory thread by the way. I think we should resume or go back to topic. That is, harmony and counterpoint shouldn't be taught separately, harmony books are insufficient/incompetent from a practical perspective, etc.


----------



## Guest

I think less musically knowledgeable people would find Hildegard von Bingen's music tonal (as opposed to atonal, which is what I think KenOC was driving at). I doubt anyone would find this as ending on wrong notes and so forth as someone else said. And remember that Hildegard is generally regarded as the West's first true composer from 1000 years ago.


----------



## Mahlerian

Victor Redseal said:


> I think less musically knowledgeable people would find Hildegard von Bingen's music tonal (as opposed to atonal, which is what I think KenOC was driving at). I doubt anyone would find this as ending on wrong notes and so forth as someone else said. And remember that Hildegard is generally regarded as the West's first true composer from 1000 years ago.


But tonal and atonal aren't opposed, and something not being tonal does not make it atonal. That's the point.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> But tonal and atonal aren't opposed, and something not being tonal does not make it atonal. That's the point.


Atonal simply means "music which has no tonal center." Tone-centeredness is something you hear, not think about.



SVnotVK said:


> I think from an average listener's point of view (or hearing) and that would apply to people not very much concerned with the academic terms such as "tonal music" that music would be a less elaborate subset of the later "mainstream" music that still would sound accessible to the majority of less "advanced" listeners. Many such people would easier accept Gregorian chants rather than sophisticated modern music of the 20th century.
> 
> I think what KenOC meant is that if you defined the term of "tonal music" for these less musically-knowledgeable people (and by no means "less intelligent" - many intelligent people have undeveloped musical ear unlike some unintelligent natural ear players) - so if you defined the term of "tonal music" for them in terms of actual comparing (in a listening session) of early music to later music, they would identified the simple Gregorian chant as a less developed subset of a later Common Practice Period music (which for majority of such people, believe me, is known simply as "Classical Music", including the very Gregorian chants).
> Maybe they would hear some weirdness of the modal melodic nature of the chants but not to the extent they would identify the lack of tonal center.


Okay, agreed. Then why the hair-splitting exceptions?



SVnotVK said:


> That's interesting. So, why did it take so long for the music to become "tonal" (centered to the tonic)? In the times when Gregorian chants were sang did the singers and listeners feel the need to resolve the line on the tonal center? Apparently not - they were quite satisfied to land on the "weird" notes as it was mentioned in this thread (in different terms).


That's because they were singing written music. It was written that way. The 'weird' notes were 'finals,' and these 'finals' were not always the tonic of the mode. Technically, there was no 'tonic' per se, but the net result of these tetrachords is the same; they produce a sense of tone-centeredness in the listener. I hope the Gregorian chant academic freaks don't start in with definitions about how chant is not really 'tonal,' and obscure the point of all this obfuscation: that GG is tone-centric music, in a general sense, to the average listener.



SVnotVK said:


> So, what was "natural" to hear for people "back then" was not so natural (or outdated) in later stages of music development?


Folk music, or almost any ditty out there. GG was Church music, written down, with all sorts of conventions and restrictions.



SVnotVK said:


> Put it another way: if you demonstrated a Bach fugue to a listener (or better let's assume, a singer?) of the 'Gregorian chant period' would he think of it as a more "natural" way to conceive music? Or would they simply dismiss such music for the lack of specific "tonal center" listening skillls?


I'd think they would say Bach is more natural. Gregorian chant is a very traditional, mannered form of music, based on Greek tetrachords.



SVnotVK said:


> If it's a matter of ear "training" then what other possible musical inventions can be found in the future that will change the perception of music? Or is "tonality" the final ultimate product beyond which all further music development becomes too complicated for the "average listener" who can easily mistake the Gregorian chant for an undeveloped Classical piece?


Yes, whatever you said. Most everything else involves the use of the brain, not just the ears, and as we all know, people think music is sensual, not cerebral.


----------



## Guest

All I'm saying is that nobody would find the music of a thousand years ago to be atonal unless it WAS atonal.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Atonal simply means "music which has no tonal center." Tone-centeredness is something you hear, not think about.


Not according to you, when you say my sense of tone-centeredness in Schoenberg, Boulez, and Carter, something I hear very clearly, is an illusion.



Victor Redseal said:


> All I'm saying is that nobody would find the music of a thousand years ago to be atonal unless it WAS atonal.


People find plenty of things atonal that aren't atonal in any sense except the most arbitrary. Take the fact that the word itself predates any of the music it's now applied to, for example.

That said, the music of Hildegard is neither tonal nor atonal, like everything else until the 1600s.


----------



## millionrainbows

Richannes Wrahms said:


> This is the Counterpoint vs Harmony Theory thread by the way. I think we should resume or go back to topic. That is, harmony and counterpoint shouldn't be taught separately, harmony books are insufficient/incompetent from a practical perspective, etc.


Harmony by itself works in jazz. Counterpoint is the archaic treatment of certain 'suspensions' and voice leading, which in harmonic theory are simply seen as added notes to a chord.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Not according to you, when you say my sense of tone-centeredness in Schoenberg, Boulez, and Carter is an illusion.
> 
> People find plenty of things atonal that aren't atonal in any sense except the most arbitrary. Take the fact that the word itself predates any of the music it's now applied to, for example.
> 
> That said, the music of Hildegard is neither tonal nor atonal, like everything else until the 1600s.


I think Hidegard is definitely tone-centric music. A lot of her compositions even start off with a 'drone' instrument to reinforce this. Listen:

[video=Youtube]https://youtu.be/0nPaljFIbmc[/video]


----------



## millionrainbows

I think Hidegard is definitely tone-centric music. A lot of her compositions even start off with a 'drone' instrument to reinforce this. Listen:


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

> I'd think they would say Bach is more natural. Gregorian chant is a very traditional, mannered form of music, based on Greek tetrachords.


I disagree. Bach is and sounds as artificial, with it's machine-like regularity and polarity. Dorian and myxolydian sound more 'natural'.



> Counterpoint is the archaic treatment of certain 'suspensions' and voice leading, which in harmonic theory are simply seen as added notes to a chord.


Counterpoint cares primarily about melody, its intervallic constituents and relations to other melodies, the guidelines to set for such are completely arbitrary. Harmonic theory was built form a subset of selected vertical occurrences in the wide variety of results that different contrapuntal practices came to generate. Once established it has often claimed universality, to be a 'musical science' and tried (and failed) to justify itself on nature (as if that were a valid argument). In the end it's two idiots arguing whether time is more important than space, and like such they are considered a single entity in modern practice.


----------



## millionrainbows

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I disagree. Bach is and sounds as artificial, with it's machine-like regularity and polarity. Dorian and myxolydian sound more 'natural'.
> 
> Counterpoint cares primarily about melody, its intervallic constituents and relations to other melodies, the guidelines to set for such are completely arbitrary. Harmonic theory was built form a subset of selected vertical occurrences in the wide variety of results that different contrapuntal practices came to generate. Once established it has often claimed universality, to be a 'musical science' and tried (and failed) to justify itself on nature (as if that were a valid argument). In the end it's two idiots arguing whether time is more important than space, and like such they are considered a single entity in modern practice.


I also disagree, and have often stated that the vertical is primary (in the beginning was the note). Tonality is based on a vertical harmonic model, of one note (fundamental) and its subsidiary harmonics. From this vertical model came the horizontal 'functions' of harmony.

At one time, I did not separate them, but now I do. True, harmonic function evolved from confluence of melodic lines, but if it had not, we would still be thinking like medieval composers. Harmony and tonality as we know it is the result of vertical thinking.


----------



## Che2007

Ok guys a few things need clearing up!

Kirnberger was not trying to rehabilitate Rameau - in fact he disliked Rameau. His problem was that he didn't realize a lot of his sensible musical observations were actually Ramellian! So he attacked Rameau even while holding the same position. This is part of the controversy around Rameau, because he was a poor writer he was often read through interpreters. A lot of German theorists never read any Rameau at all but blanched at it out of national pride. 

Something else I think is worth pointing out: it is true that the idea that the chord of nature controls all harmony is pretty much mad. However, tones are at some level related to each other via numerical ratios. That doesn't mean we should let mathematical mystics think number holds the key to unlocking all musical mysteries, but it does mean we should see tones for what they are: aethetisized sound.

Let me also state that roman numerals are not based on some natural myth. That is to totally misunderstand what they are for. They one part of a wider analytical toolkit that encompasses counterpoint and harmony as one. A good analyst (not some second rate first year undergrad teacher) integrates roman numeral analysis, figured bass, prolongation theory, function theory and neo-Reimannian theories into one holistic analysis. The idea is to point out as much about the music as possible without doing disservice to the music at hand. It is a shame that so many student get turned off to theory because they can't see the point of the analytical methods at hand. This is the result of bad teaching. When you discuss a piece in a conducive atmosphere the key idea is to focus on contrapuntal details, harmonic effects, timbre, register, function, meaning, EVERYTHING. Leave something out at your peril!

People certainly fall into the camps of harmony and counterpoint but really it is a false tribalism. As someone already pointed out, you can't have one without the other.


----------



## tdc

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I disagree. Bach is and sounds as artificial, with it's machine-like regularity and polarity.


"Machine-like"? You mean _regularity_ like the movement of the planets around the sun perhaps? Galaxies? The geometric patterns of a spider-web, the Fibonacci sequence etc.

I think for many Bach's music is evocative of the grand design of the cosmos.

"Machine-like" and natural are not necessarily a dichotomy.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> Something else I think is worth pointing out: it is true that the idea that the chord of nature controls all harmony is pretty much mad. However, tones are at some level related to each other via numerical ratios. That doesn't mean we should let mathematical mystics think number holds the key to unlocking all musical mysteries, but it does mean we should see tones for what they are: aethetisized sound.


I don't think it's crazy unless you take it too literally. All scales are representative of "tonal hierarchies" which are* not *all derived from one "chord of nature" but are modeled after a harmonic series. There's a big difference.



Che2007 said:


> Let me also state that roman numerals are not based on some natural myth. That is to totally misunderstand what they are for. They one part of a wider analytical toolkit that encompasses counterpoint and harmony as one.


That's also an exaggeration of the literalness of a harmonic model. Root functions are derived from whatever step of the scale the chord is built on, and that root's relation to tonic, which is expressed as a ratio. These are then gradated by their degree of dissonance.



Che2007 said:


> People certainly fall into the camps of harmony and counterpoint but really it is a false tribalism. As someone already pointed out, you can't have one without the other.


Thank God we got into harmonic thinking, or we'd all still be doing chants.

Music is sound, and sound is harmonic, and harmony is instantaneous, and sound is being, and being is always now. Can you dig it, man?

All that vertical function, development, long form, and horizontal stuff is just cerebral construction which came later.


----------



## Che2007

Minona said:


> Yet their works are now almost exclusively analysed in the vertical 'chord at a time' perspective with Roman numerals.


I know I am late in the day but I disagree with you on two counts. Firstly a lot of the analysis of CP music has/is being done by Schenkerites who are fundamentally contrapuntalists. Secondly, another large branch of theory for that time period is partimento, which again is not to do with harmony as much as contrapuntal combinations. Thirdly, a good roman numeral analysis takes note of harmony and counterpoint together. Maybe students write bad analysis where they treat each chord as an isolated event, but they are students. They don't know what they are doing yet.

Also, the famed rejection of Rameau by CPE Bach isn't really that telling because he hadn't read Rameau and had only been exposed to very biased and contradictory 'retellings'. Whatever way you want to cut it, harmony is important and so is counterpoint. They are not mutually exclusive and I wouldn't say the academic field is really biased one way or the other.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think it's crazy unless you take it too literally. All scales are representative of "tonal hierarchies" which are* not *all derived from one "chord of nature" but are modeled after a harmonic series. There's a big difference.


That is just straightforwardly not true. How is the octatonic scale modelled after the harmonic series? For that matter, how is the major scale modelled after the series? If it was, how could it have a 4th against the tonic? That never happens in the harmonic series.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> That is just straightforwardly not true. How is the octatonic scale modelled after the harmonic series? For that matter, how is the major scale modelled after the series? If it was, how could it have a 4th against the tonic? That never happens in the harmonic series.


Apparently, there are more things in heaven and on Earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

You argue that a fourth, 3:4, cannot be said to be modeled after "the one and only" harmonic series, and that this throws the idea off. That's a mistake of thinking too literally. The major scale is_ perfect _for PC tonality _because_ of its inherent dissonances, F and B. These notes allow dissonances to emerge which "need resolving."

Still, the harmonic ratio of 4:5 is less dissonant than the steps on 2,3,6, and 7.

You're taking this idea of "harmonic models" and "models of function" and distorting it into something I do not endorse, and you are exagerrating the ideas. I see this as a defensive reaction to your CP training. I suggest you explore some areas further from your comfort zone, such as _Sound and Light, Genesis of a New Music, _and the _Just Intonation Primer; _plus_ Equal Tempera__ment: How it Ruined Harmony..."_

You are relating this scale hierarchy idea _too literally _to _"the" _harmonic series. This idea should be seen as a_ generality.
_
There are always exceptions. But please, let me enlighten you.

No, the octatonic scale is not based on a harmonic model. It is a scale ,like the whole tone scale, that was derived as a result of* geometric *division of the chromatic scale.
Regarding the major scale, no, it is not the perfect scale; in a C maj scale, the notes F and B form a tritone. In this sense, the pentatonic scale C-D-E-G-A is "better" for tonality reinforcement, since it leaves out the F and B and has no tritones.
BTW, you are _misunderstanding_ the concept of of scales as harmonic models, because you think they must be consonant, or reflect "the" harmonic series in a literal way. This is simply not true, and I never said that.
*Scales are models of a harmonic hierarchy *in this regard: all the scale members are related to "1" or tonic by ratios, which are degrees of sonances.
Most dissonant intervals to most consonant intervals, within one octave:
1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
3. major second (C-D) 8:9
4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
6. major third (C-E) 4:5
7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
10. octave (C-C') 1:2
11. unison (C-C) 1:1

*Harry Partch,* from _Genesis of a New Music:_

The steps of our scale, and the "functions" of the chords built thereon, are the direct result of interval ratios, all in relation to a "keynote" or unity of 1; *the intervals not only have a dissonant/consonant quality determined by their ratio, but also are given a specific scale degree (function) and place in relation to "1" or the Tonic*. *This is where all "linear function" originated, and is still manifest as ratios (intervals), which are at the same time, physical harmonic phenomena.*

One (1:1) is the ultimate consonance. In the beginning was ONE. From this, sprang forth the universe.

"All musical understanding can be reduced to the understanding of one note."


----------



## millionrainbows

*Harry Partch,* from _Genesis of a New Music:_

The steps of our scale, and the "functions" of the chords built thereon, are the direct result of interval ratios, all in relation to a "keynote" or unity of 1; *the intervals not only have a dissonant/consonant quality determined by their ratio, but also are given a specific scale degree (function) and place in relation to "1" or the Tonic*. *This is where all "linear function" originated, and is still manifest as ratios (intervals), which are at the same time, physical harmonic phenomena.

*There is nothing in Partch's statement which_ requires _that these scale relations and functions must be related to "the" harmonic series. In other words, this is a model of a harmonic series, as all scales can be: harmonic models.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> You argue that a fourth, 3:4, cannot be said to be modeled after "the one and only" harmonic series, and that this throws the idea off. That's a mistake of thinking too literally. The major scale is_ perfect _for PC tonality _because_ of its inherent dissonances, F and B. These notes allow dissonances to emerge which "need resolving."


So how does that mean it is modelled after the harmonic series? Can you explain or is it just something you have read and swallowed whole? The diatonic of Ancient Greek theory is the result of harmonic and arithmetic division of the octave into smaller units in a recursive process. What has that got to do with the harmonic series? The later understanding of the diatonic as a lattice of 3rds and 5ths also doesn't suggest modelling after the harmonic series. You do know that no one was aware of the overtone series until the 18th Century right?



> I see this as a defensive reaction to your CP training. I suggest you explore some areas further from your comfort zone, such as _Sound and Light, Genesis of a New Music, _and the _Just Intonation Primer; _plus_ Equal Tempera__ment: How it Ruined Harmony..."_


Let's clear a couple of things up - I have read Genesis of a Music and How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony. I never bothered with the Just Intonation Primer since it is a popularist book rather than a thorough academic account... I have read a great deal else besides. You are acting like you know everything about just intonation and tuning just because you have read some pretty basic and polemical texts. I have and am researching tuning and temperament. I study with Jon Wild at McGill University (he is my PhD supervisor) and I have done projects on La Monte Young and Ben Johnston. I also write music in different tuning systems. I am currently working on a suite for guitar in a 13-limit tuning.

YOU ARE NOT TEACHING ME ABOUT SOME ARCANE SET OF KNOWLEDGE THAT ISNT FREELY AVAILABLE.

There are a great many interesting and thoughtful researchers on the topic and you are grossly misrepresenting the field when you fall back on a Partch inspired mysticism.

Also, what do you know of my training? I was an electric guitarist when I started at university. Just because I know about common practice tonality doesn't mean that is where I originate from.



> No, the octatonic scale is not based on a harmonic model. It is a scale ,like the whole tone scale, that was derived as a result of* geometric *division of the chromatic scale.


So when you said "all scales are modelled after the harmonic series" that was just plain wrong then? (I mean, it is wrong anyway but it is even wrong by your standards)



> Regarding the major scale, no, it is not the perfect scale; in a C maj scale, the notes F and B form a tritone. In this sense, the pentatonic scale C-D-E-G-A is "better" for tonality reinforcement, since it leaves out the F and B and has no tritones.


Tonal reinforcement relies on semitonal resolution of the leading tone so the pentatonic scale isn't better for tonal reinforcement.



> *Scales are models of a harmonic hierarchy *in this regard: all the scale members are related to "1" or tonic by ratios, which are degrees of sonances.
> Most dissonant intervals to most consonant intervals, within one octave:
> 1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
> 2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
> 3. major second (C-D) 8:9
> 4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
> 5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
> 6. major third (C-E) 4:5
> 7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
> 8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
> 9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
> 10. octave (C-C') 1:2
> 11. unison (C-C) 1:1


Except of course that that scale doesn't represent the harmonic series well now does it? If it did wouldn't C-Ab be 13:8? and why isn't C-Bb 7:4? What you have there is the scenario of Zarlino. That isn't modelled after the harmonic series, that is just modelled on a lattice of 3rds and 5ths... Also where is your tritone? What are you gonna pick for that? 7:5? 45:32?

I'll help you out though - go listen to Ben Johnston's 9th String Quartet here: 




The 2nd Movement uses overtone and undertone scales that are directly modelled on the harmonic series.(Starting 7:40) To hear a contrast listen to the 3rd movement. (Starting 12:10) Here is tuning helps make clear the tonal function of the sequences around a tonnetz. This I would say is not really modelled of the harmonic series, instead it elucidates the implied tuning mistakes from well-tempered or equally tempered classical repertoire. If you have the money I recommend picking up the Kepler Quartet's recordings of Johnston's quartets - they are much better than the quartet in that video.

So there you have a student of Partch's working with scales modelled on the harmonic series. I wouldn't really say that is representative of all music making... Not even in that esoteric field...



> *Harry Partch,* from _Genesis of a New Music:_
> 
> The steps of our scale, and the "functions" of the chords built thereon, are the direct result of interval ratios, all in relation to a "keynote" or unity of 1; *the intervals not only have a dissonant/consonant quality determined by their ratio, but also are given a specific scale degree (function) and place in relation to "1" or the Tonic*. *This is where all "linear function" originated, and is still manifest as ratios (intervals), which are at the same time, physical harmonic phenomena.*
> 
> One (1:1) is the ultimate consonance. In the beginning was ONE. From this, sprang forth the universe.
> 
> "All musical understanding can be reduced to the understanding of one note."


So Partch had a weird pythagorean complex? That doesn't change the way music is made, conceptualized or its history.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> *Harry Partch,* from _Genesis of a New Music:_
> 
> The steps of our scale, and the "functions" of the chords built thereon, are the direct result of interval ratios, all in relation to a "keynote" or unity of 1; *the intervals not only have a dissonant/consonant quality determined by their ratio, but also are given a specific scale degree (function) and place in relation to "1" or the Tonic*. *This is where all "linear function" originated, and is still manifest as ratios (intervals), which are at the same time, physical harmonic phenomena.
> 
> *There is nothing in Partch's statement which_ requires _that these scale relations and functions must be related to "the" harmonic series. In other words, this is a model of a harmonic series, as all scales can be: harmonic models.


Ok then, so your "modelled on the harmonic series" has given way to the "harmonic model" which can be paraphrased as: Notes relate to each other by intervals...

How very enlightening. You've really rocked the world of music.


----------



## millionrainbows

millionrainbows said:


> You argue that a fourth, 3:4, cannot be said to be modeled after "the one and only" harmonic series, and that this throws the idea off. That's a mistake of thinking too literally. The major scale is_ perfect _for PC tonality _because_ of its inherent dissonances, F and B. These notes allow dissonances to emerge which "need resolving."





Che2007 said:


> So how does that mean it is modelled after the harmonic series? Can you explain or is it just something you have read and swallowed whole? The diatonic of Ancient Greek theory is the result of harmonic and arithmetic division of the octave into smaller units in a recursive process. What has that got to do with the harmonic series? The later understanding of the diatonic as a lattice of 3rds and 5ths also doesn't suggest modelling after the harmonic series. You do know that no one was aware of the overtone series until the 18th Century right?


Stop trying to relate all my ideas back to "one harmonic series." I'm talking about a model of this, not the literal thing. The hierarchy, not the actual components. Got a problem with that?​

millionrainbows said:


> I see this as a defensive reaction to your CP training. I suggest you explore some areas further from your comfort zone, such as _Sound and Light, Genesis of a New Music, _and the _Just Intonation Primer; _plus_ Equal Tempera__ment: How it Ruined Harmony..."_





Che2007 said:


> Let's clear a couple of things up - I have read Genesis of a Music and How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony. I never bothered with the Just Intonation Primer since it is a popularist book rather than a thorough academic account... I have read a great deal else besides. You are acting like you know everything about just intonation and tuning just because you have read some pretty basic and polemical texts. I have and am researching tuning and temperament. I study with Jon Wild at McGill University (he is my PhD supervisor) and I have done projects on La Monte Young and Ben Johnston. I also write music in different tuning systems. I am currently working on a suite for guitar in a 13-limit tuning.


I seem to have a way of getting people to show their credentials. This is the same thing that the jazz guy did. He did a gig at a restaurant for a crowd of 75! He's got some CDs out, too!



Che2007 said:


> YOU ARE NOT TEACHING ME ABOUT SOME ARCANE SET OF KNOWLEDGE THAT ISNT FREELY AVAILABLE.


I know that; this is just my own theory, in my own way of thinking and playing with ideas. I guess by "propounding " it, I am just inviting attacks. Perhaps I'm testing the waters.



Che2007 said:


> There are a great many interesting and thoughtful researchers on the topic and you are grossly misrepresenting the field when you fall back on a Partch inspired mysticism.


Oh, gee, I feel like an outsider.



Che2007 said:


> Also, what do you know of my training? I was an electric guitarist when I started at university. Just because I know about common practice tonality doesn't mean that is where I originate from.


You just told me. I think every thinker, if he is worth his salt, goes through a period of "doing what is expected," then eventually develops his own original ideas. ​

millionrainbows said:


> No, the octatonic scale is not based on a harmonic model. It is a scale ,like the whole tone scale, that was derived as a result of* geometric *division of the chromatic scale.




Che2007 said:


> So when you said "all scales are modelled after the harmonic series" that was just plain wrong then? (I mean, it is wrong anyway but it is even wrong by your standards)


I said "modeled" after the hierarchy of that series, not a literal copy of it. That would be inane.​

millionrainbows said:


> Regarding the major scale, no, it is not the perfect scale; in a C maj scale, the notes F and B form a tritone. In this sense, the pentatonic scale C-D-E-G-A is "better" for tonality reinforcement, since it leaves out the F and B and has no tritones.





Che2007 said:


> Tonal reinforcement relies on semitonal resolution of the leading tone so the pentatonic scale isn't better for tonal reinforcement.





Che2007 said:


> You're misunderstanding that concept. In C maj tonality, the major scale has F and B. F is not part of the C maj chord; it is a dissonance. Neither is B. These notes do not reinforce the C tonality inherently; they were put there to create dissonances which "needed" resolving. They create an instability first, then they resolve it. This is totally arbitrary.​*
> 
> 
> millionrainbows said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scales are models of a harmonic hierarchy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> millionrainbows said:
> 
> 
> 
> in this regard: all the scale members are related to "1" or tonic by ratios, which are degrees of sonances.
> Most dissonant intervals to most consonant intervals, within one octave:
> 1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
> 2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
> 3. major second (C-D) 8:9
> 4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
> 5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
> 6. major third (C-E) 4:5
> 7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
> 8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
> 9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
> 10. octave (C-C') 1:2
> 11. unison (C-C) 1:1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Che2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except of course that that scale doesn't represent the harmonic series well now does it? If it did wouldn't C-Ab be 13:8? and why isn't C-Bb 7:4? What you have there is the scenario of Zarlino. That isn't modelled after the harmonic series, that is just modelled on a lattice of 3rds and 5ths... Also where is your tritone? What are you gonna pick for that? 7:5? 45:32?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said I wanted to copy the harmonic series. I only use its hierarchy as a model, which has function and exist as sounds.
> 
> 
> Che2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll help you out though - go listen to Ben Johnston's 9th String Quartet here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've got some Ben Johnston already. Thanks, I will look into this recording.
> 
> 
> 
> Che2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Movement uses overtone and undertone scales that are directly modelled on the harmonic series.(Starting 7:40) To hear a contrast listen to the 3rd movement. (Starting 12:10) Here is tuning helps make clear the tonal function of the sequences around a tonnetz. This I would say is not really modelled of the harmonic series, instead it elucidates the implied tuning mistakes from well-tempered or equally tempered classical repertoire. If you have the money I recommend picking up the Kepler Quartet's recordings of Johnston's quartets - they are much better than the quartet in that video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the recommendation. Your tone is much more attractive when you give out ideas, rather than simply try to invalidate mine. This knowledge might come in handy later on, when you are teaching.​
> 
> Che2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there you have a student of Partch's working with scales modelled on the harmonic series. I wouldn't really say that is representative of all music making... Not even in that esoteric field...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all very interesting, and I'm glad you see some redeeming value in Harry Partch.
> *
> 
> 
> millionrainbows said:
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Partch,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> millionrainbows said:
> 
> 
> 
> from _Genesis of a New Music:_
> 
> The steps of our scale, and the "functions" of the chords built thereon, are the direct result of interval ratios, all in relation to a "keynote" or unity of 1; *the intervals not only have a dissonant/consonant quality determined by their ratio, but also are given a specific scale degree (function) and place in relation to "1" or the Tonic*. *This is where all "linear function" originated, and is still manifest as ratios (intervals), which are at the same time, physical harmonic phenomena.*
> 
> One (1:1) is the ultimate consonance. In the beginning was ONE. From this, sprang forth the universe.
> 
> "All musical understanding can be reduced to the understanding of one note."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Che2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Partch had a weird pythagorean complex? That doesn't change the way music is made, conceptualized or its history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you will recall in Partch's book, he goes into history quite deeply.​
Click to expand...


----------



## millionrainbows

Re: the octatonic scale, it is a result of "interval projection" if you want to see it that way, but really, it's a geometric consequence of the 12-note octave.
No, it's not really based on a harmonic model, unless you force the issue and create a 'tonality' out of it, which has been done. But the octatonic/diminished represents the 'glitch' in the diatonic/harmonic system.
All intervals can be "cycled" (see interval multiplication). The min 2 is (in semitones)1x12=12; M2 is 2x6=12; m3 is 3x4=12; M3 is 4x3=12; except for 4 & 5, which are 5x12=60, and 7x12=84. The tritone is 6x2=12.
The 4th and 5th need to "go outside of 12" to a larger common denominator; thus, they have the tendency to want to take us outside of the octave (key area) into new keys. Thus CP tonality, based on 4ths and 5ths, is inherently restless, and wants to modulate or travel.
Music that is chromatic and based on smaller intervals will "go inward" and create smaller divisions of the octave as "stations" or seeds of tonal centers, or areas, like Bartok did.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> I know that; this is just my own theory, in my own way of thinking and playing with ideas. I guess by "propounding " it, I am just inviting attacks. Perhaps I'm testing the waters.


What is your own theory? You are just misunderstanding the little of Partch you have read and making wishy washy statements about intervals being expressible by frequency ratios. I wouldn't call that theory and certainly not theory of your own design.



> Your tone is much more attractive when you give out ideas, rather than simply try to invalidate mine. This knowledge might come in handy later on, when you are teaching.


That is very patronizing of you. When I teach I correct incorrect statements of my students. That is an essential part of pedagogy. If they take it personally and get defensive (like you are being) I tend to... Oh wait, they don't do that because they are learning.



> As you will recall in Partch's book, he goes into history quite deeply.


As I recall, he brushes over historical detail lightly and only where it suits his own ends.


----------



## millionrainbows

millionrainbows said:


> I know that; this is just my own theory, in my own way of thinking and playing with ideas. I guess by "propounding " it, I am just inviting attacks. Perhaps I'm testing the waters.





Che2007 said:


> What is your own theory? You are just misunderstanding the little of Partch you have read and making wishy washy statements about intervals being expressible by frequency ratios. I wouldn't call that theory and certainly not theory of your own design.


I think I know what's going on here, and it has nothing to do with the veracity of any of my ideas.



> Your tone is much more attractive when you give out ideas, rather than simply try to invalidate mine. This knowledge might come in handy later on, when you are teaching.





Che2007 said:


> That is very patronizing of you. When I teach I correct incorrect statements of my students. That is an essential part of pedagogy. If they take it personally and get defensive (like you are being) I tend to... Oh wait, they don't do that because they are learning.


I don't think that's the issue at all.



> As you will recall in Partch's book, he goes into history quite deeply.





Che2007 said:


> As I recall, he brushes over historical detail lightly and only where it suits his own ends.


True to form. It's so obvious.


----------



## Che2007

To return to the question of harmony and counterpoint: I had an interesting discussion with a friend today about the difference between harmonic and contrapuntal thinking. His example was the difference between a madrigal and a recitative. I could see his point: often recit. textures involve long gaps between harmonies, which are often left up the the accompanist to work out re: spacing and the such. This leaves some room for thinking of each harmony as an isolated event, yet still taking part in syntactical progressions. A madrigal or motet or the such, has an ongoing liaison (to use Rameau's term) between the harmonies and seem to be more obviously taking part in a contrapuntal design.

However, if I think of a Bach recit. often the figured bass can only be realized in a single way while satisfying the rules of voice-leading (an idiosyncrasy of the maestro). For example, take the recit. below:






I am loth to draw some line between harmony and counterpoint in this example. It exemplifies to me the problem of treating harmony and counterpoint as two separate domains. Both affective sonority and contrapuntal liaison work in tandem in a piece such as this to my ear. This example does highlight the aesthetic differences between recit. and more standard contrapuntal fare however, once the aria kicks in, the accompaniment is much more involved and obviously partaking in the melodic work.

What do you guys think? Are the recit. and aria linked above totally different in contrapuntal/harmonic behaviour to your ears? Or are they two sides of the same coin?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Nobody has yet provided a rigorous proof of the contrapuntal picture / harmonic picture equivalence. I am disappointed. 

-50 points to tc logicians


----------



## aleazk

This honorable court rules the following: Counterpoint can't be closer than 100m to Harmony. Case closed.

Next case: Tones vs Atonal music.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think that counterpoint and harmony are two different ways of thinking about music. I prefer to focus on the differences, not the similarities. I feel that counterpoint is an older way of thinking which evolved from chant, and that harmonic thinking is a newer approach which is ultimately more useful and less archaic, and it reflects the tonal system more accurately. By the time of Bach, he had already begun to think harmonically, although his lines are separate. There are all kinds of examples of where Bach is using separate lines to create harmonic effects; effects which are not just the congruence of lines, but are constructed to create specific chordal (harmonic) effects.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I think that counterpoint and harmony are two different ways of thinking about music. I prefer to focus on the differences, not the similarities. I feel that counterpoint is an older way of thinking which evolved from chant, and that harmonic thinking is a newer approach which is ultimately more useful and less archaic, and it reflects the tonal system more accurately. By the time of Bach, he had already begun to think harmonically, although his lines are separate. There are all kinds of examples of where Bach is using separate lines to create harmonic effects; effects which are not just the congruence of lines, but are constructed to create specific chordal (harmonic) effects.


It's the magnificent integration and balance he achieved - taking both the richness of counterpoint _and_ the structural function of harmony to such great heights - that makes Bach seem to some of us the greatest of composers.


----------



## Chordalrock

millionrainbows said:


> I think that counterpoint and harmony are two different ways of thinking about music. I prefer to focus on the differences, not the similarities. I feel that counterpoint is an older way of thinking which evolved from chant, and that harmonic thinking is a newer approach which is ultimately more useful and less archaic, and it reflects the tonal system more accurately. By the time of Bach, he had already begun to think harmonically, although his lines are separate. There are all kinds of examples of where Bach is using separate lines to create harmonic effects; effects which are not just the congruence of lines, but are constructed to create specific chordal (harmonic) effects.


A lot of early Renaissance music can be relatively harmonically oriented, with long bass and tenor notes that seem to only exist to provide harmonic support, e.g. in Dufay's "Salve flos". Harmony was known, it just lost its importance when composers started paying more attention to polyphony and a texture that was consistently polyphonic and treated the voices equally.

Polyphony becomes supreme in Gombert, but there are beautiful harmonic effects even in Gombert that couldn't have been accident. Gombert usually comes across as someone who just doesn't care about harmony as much as he cares about polyphonic freedom. You can hear an endless series of passing dissonances in music that is harmonically not just rather aimless like anything from those decades but also flat-out ugly, because that's how he wants the concurrent melodies to go, and he wants there to be many of them at the same time. There's no other way to do it. Music that is both 100% polyphonic and truly harmonic just doesn't exist. You are either putting together your dream melodies or you are putting together a nice harmonic progression built from suitable melodies, which may be nice but it's no Gombert.

And even in Bach, a lot of polyphonic thinking where harmonic progression is clearly of no importance to him and thus harmony takes backseat to polyphony at those times. I'm not sure if I recall any striking examples, but there are many moments in the Art of Fugue where the general harmonic shape of the music seems like nonsense, because Bach is focusing on developing his themes and counterthemes and whatnot rather than going where the ear would lead him.

Of course, imitative counterpoint vs. free counterpoint is a separate issue, and yes, of course it's easier to write harmonic counterpoint in free style, but it's also somewhat analogical an issue, because in imitative counterpoint you are restricting your ability to write freely just as you are restricting your ability to write polyphony freely if you focus on harmony. I seem to have noticed that Bach's fugues usually have interesting counter-themes compared with stuff in free counterpoint (e.g. Bach cantata instrument-singer duets). Harmonic counterpoint often devolves into some pretty trite stuff, even in Bach's hands.

You can see a greater rhythmic complexity in Renaissance music compared with Bach's counterpoint outside his fugues and maybe even in his fugues. I think that's part of what you can do when you don't try to have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## millionrainbows

Hmm...it seems to me that since there are only 7 notes in a diatonic scale, and only 12 notes in the entire chromatic, that no matter what happens will have harmonic meaning. Single lines always seem to be confined to harmonic areas to me; the rest of the notes are just passing tones.

The C minor fugue from WTC I, for example. The theme is very memorable melodically, and exists on its own in several places, but when you look at it closely, many of the notes are unessential, and exist as deviations from their harmonic meaning.

In other words, all a "melody" or theme is, is notes that outline the chord, or notes that deviate from the chord, as passing notes or parts of a sequence. All they do is create tension, or direction towards a more essential station.

This use of melody is not the same as a melody which truly exists on its own, independent of any harmonic context or meaning, as Gregorian chant can do, or as truly melodic modern music can do, such as an unaccompanied flute solo or something of that nature.

Harmony is clearly superior, and is the true development of tonal thinking;

By comparison, melody is just some dude in a loin cloth playing a flute in front of a fire, so to speak.


----------



## Chordalrock

The harmonic perspective isn't about being able to reduce everything to some sort of harmonic progressions through analysis. It's about putting harmonic progression above polyphony in terms of importance as a composer when composing the music. There's a tension between the polyphonic approach to composition and the harmonic approach to composition that can't be resolved. The approaches are equally valid, and produce music of two different kinds and equally capable of greatness. The harmonic approach reaches its most natural state, not in constricted counterpoint, but in homophony where no attention is paid to voice leading.

Incidentally, I just played the beginning of that fugue a few times, and I don't think Bach is much concerned with the harmonic implications of melody there. The piece begins with a rest, the tonic is played on a weak beat first, and the first third of the subject ends in A flat and emphasises that note on a strong beat. What harmony is being implied here? None whatsoever, as best I can tell. The following third of the subject might have suggested the chord of F minor, but instead of F, the phrase ends with G, so that's out of the question. A flat major doesn't work either, except maybe for the first third of the subject if you want to really stretch your imagination, but you'd really have to stretch, what with the B natural there and the piece being conceived as beginning in C minor not A flat major.

When the initial phrase is repeated while the left hand plays the counter-subject, you finally get the outlines of the tonic chord of C minor. But this has nothing to do with what the themes imply when taken in isolation. Bach actually modifies the first subject here so that it creates an outline of the chord C minor, but he doesn't need to do this for harmony, he does it to avoid a striking dissonance that would be created if that phrase weren't modified.


----------



## millionrainbows

Chordalrock said:


> ...I just played the beginning of that fugue a few times, and I don't think Bach is much concerned with the harmonic implications of melody there. The piece begins with a rest, the tonic is played on a weak beat first...


The way Bach wrote the rhythm at the beginning is still a mystery to me, and I can play it. I just don't count it that way. I hear it as and-a-ONE. Perhaps that is incorrect, but I don't think a rhythmic defense is the best defense strategy here, especially to convince me. I think there is some notational/practicality issue at work here. I still don't know why he notated it like that.



> ...and the first third of the subject ends in A flat and emphasises that note on a strong beat. What harmony is being implied here? None whatsoever, as best I can tell.


It's part of an F minor chord, that seems obvious. F-Ab-C.


----------



## Chordalrock

millionrainbows said:


> It's part of an F minor chord, that seems obvious. F-Ab-C.


It literally can't seem obvious, since there is no F note in that phrase. Moreover, if the first implied harmony of the piece is F minor chord, then that would be pretty odd for a Baroque fugue beginning in C minor.

I think that phrase makes a lot more sense if you simply imagine that it begins with the tonic without any harmonic implication. Then you can perceive it to be in C minor and hear the following notes in relation to C (rather than hearing the first phrase in relation to the F minor chord or similar nonsense).


----------



## millionrainbows

Chordalrock said:


> It literally can't seem obvious, since there is no F note in that phrase.


It implies, then, an F minor, even if it is not obvious to you. It is to me. Plus, you offer no alternative. You just want to bicker.



> Moreover, if the first implied harmony of the piece is F minor chord, then that would be pretty odd for a Baroque fugue beginning in C minor.


Then what is the Ab? Offer a solution. Don't just contradict me.



> I think that phrase makes a lot more sense if you simply imagine that it begins with the tonic without any harmonic implication. Then you can perceive it to be in C minor and hear the following notes in relation to C (rather than hearing the first phrase in relation to the F minor chord or similar nonsense).


You hear the entire first phrase entirely on C minor? That's where the problem is. I hear harmonic movement *within* the phrase. The first two notes, C-B, imply a Cmin-G already to me. Then the G-Ab I hear as implying Cm-Fm.

Apparently, you want to hear the entire phrase with a C drone under it. What is this, an Indian raga?


----------



## Chordalrock

millionrainbows said:


> It implies, then, an F minor, even if it is not obvious to you. It is to me. Plus, you offer no alternative. You just want to bicker.
> 
> Then what is the Ab? Offer a solution. Don't just contradict me.
> 
> You hear the entire first phrase entirely on C minor? That's where the problem is. I hear harmonic movement *within* the phrase. The first two notes, C-B, imply a Cmin-G already to me. Then the G-Ab I hear as implying Cm-Fm.
> 
> Apparently, you want to hear the entire phrase with a C drone under it. What is this, an Indian raga?


Come on. I don't need to offer an alternative explanation of what the implied harmonies are, when my whole point is that the theme doesn't imply any harmonies whatsoever.

Yes, you could harmonise it by starting with C minor chord, then moving straight to G major. I would harmonise it by starting with C minor chord, then moving to F minor chord when the melody hits A flat, then moving back to C minor chord after a while, then back to F minor chord and again back to C minor chord. Boring perhaps, but I think it also tells you something about how little Bach was thinking about harmonic progression when composing his subject.

Also, the most natural way to harmonise a melody isn't the same as some sort of mystical harmonic implication supposedly inherent in a melody. If we're talking about what something like the first note is supposed to "imply", then I could say it implies C major just as easily as it does C minor. At that point you could claim that one single note is always harmonically ambiguous, and that one needs to wait a while before a phrase implies a harmony unambiguously, but I don't need to wait to hear the first note in C minor, because the prelude was in C minor, and I know that the following fugue begins in the same key due to the tradition of that time.

I wouldn't equate that to perceiving a constant pedal point on C. Musical perception is a little more complex than that. The truth is though that there aren't any implied harmonies, ambiguous or otherwise, there are just different ways of harmonising a melody.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

See measure 7 and 8 here, in particular the bass voice and the upper lines in counterpoint with it.










Generally speaking, it is not obvious before hand what the chords are beat by beat until one does counterpoint with it. I bet though that there are different ways in which it could be done.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

Personally I don't care enough about the extremely florid counterpoint sometimes exhibited by WCM composers because none of the composers I like that much use it. Even Wagner in Meistersinger seems sort of like counterpoint that's clearly derived from vertical sonorities.

I learned about CP voice-leading and harmony and figured out a little bit of how to make the voices have more individuality and when I'm not thinking vertically just try to use my ear to hear what will work. There are people who are more efficient polyphony-wise and have more acuity but if I felt that writing Bachian counterpoint was in the cards for me I would try to learn it. I just don't think it is.


----------



## millionrainbows

Chordalrock said:


> Come on. I don't need to offer an alternative explanation of what the implied harmonies are, when my whole point is that the theme doesn't imply any harmonies whatsoever.
> 
> Yes, you could harmonise it by starting with C minor chord, then moving straight to G major. I would harmonise it by starting with C minor chord, then moving to F minor chord when the melody hits A flat, then moving back to C minor chord after a while, then back to F minor chord and again back to C minor chord. Boring perhaps, but I think it also tells you something about how little Bach was thinking about harmonic progression when composing his subject.
> 
> Also, the most natural way to harmonise a melody isn't the same as some sort of mystical harmonic implication supposedly inherent in a melody. If we're talking about what something like the first note is supposed to "imply", then I could say it implies C major just as easily as it does C minor. At that point you could claim that one single note is always harmonically ambiguous, and that one needs to wait a while before a phrase implies a harmony unambiguously, but I don't need to wait to hear the first note in C minor, because the prelude was in C minor, and I know that the following fugue begins in the same key due to the tradition of that time.
> 
> I wouldn't equate that to perceiving a constant pedal point on C. Musical perception is a little more complex than that. The truth is though that there aren't any implied harmonies, ambiguous or otherwise, there are just different ways of harmonising a melody.


How can one hear this fugue and not hear tonal implications? After all, it is composed in the tonal system. I think your hearing this as melodic only, if that is even true, is odd, to say the least.


----------



## Chordalrock

millionrainbows said:


> How can one hear this fugue and not hear tonal implications? After all, it is composed in the tonal system. I think your hearing this as melodic only, if that is even true, is odd, to say the least.


But we weren't talking about the fugue, only the themes considered singly and in isolation.

Anyway, perhaps you're right and some melodies imply a harmony. However, composers are never limited to what some melody seems to imply when they are actually harmonising it. Different harmonies can be used, and they change the way that the melody sounds. I don't hear such things as being in conflict with an implied harmony, now that would be odd.


----------



## Che2007

The beauty of Bach's WTC is the ideal marrying of contrapuntal and harmonic concerns. If harmony wasn't there then it wouldn't be hard to write a fugue. The whole reason why people study these pieces is because Bach displays contrapuntal freedom while writing harmonically correct music.

As for your debates about harmony at the beginning of a fugue, it is pretty much moot. If you only have one voice it can only imply harmony. You need to wait for other voices to have a clearer sense of the harmony. As it goes, the C minor fugue has a harmonically static theme, with a tail that is mutated many times in the piece to accomplish modulation etc. If you want to learn more about the way Bach fugues work, may I suggest checking out William Renwick's Analyzing Fugue.


----------



## KenOC

Che2007 said:


> The beauty of Bach's WTC is the ideal marrying of contrapuntal and harmonic concerns. If harmony wasn't there then it wouldn't be hard to write a fugue. The whole reason why people study these pieces is because Bach displays contrapuntal freedom while writing harmonically correct music.


And that's why Beethoven called Bach "the ancestral father of harmony."

(Added) "That you are going to publish Sebastian Bach's works is something that does good to my heart, which beats in love of the great and lofty art of this ancestral father of harmony; I want to see them soon." (January, 1801, to Hofmeister, in Leipzig.)


----------



## Che2007

KenOC said:


> And that's why Beethoven called Bach "the ancestral father of harmony."


Ace quote! Like it!


----------



## millionrainbows

Tonal music is inherently 'harmonic' in that it has a tonal center. Counterpoint would be better exemplified in such a strict sense (apart from harmony) by purely melodic music (which Western tonal music is not) . 
Also, counterpoint has considerations of consonance and dissonance built into its workings, and this in itself implies degrees of consonance and dissonance in relation to a tonic note, or tonal center. To try and separate counterpoint into a self-sustaining system, without regard to harmony as it applies to a tonal center, is a needlessly academic and senseless pursuit.
Just exactly what the point of such a separation is remains, in this thread, an unexplained mystery. Counterpoint MUST be seen as being harmonic.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> Counterpoint MUST be seen as being harmonic.


And harmony MUST be seen as being contrapuntal.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> And harmony MUST be seen as being contrapuntal.


I don't think it works reflexively that way. If the texture is homophonic, such as a folk singer like Bob Dylan being accompanied by a guitar, then the very nature of the musical texture makes us hear the guitar chords as harmonic entities, with the voice heard as a single line. That's not contrapuntal. That's a harmonic conception, with the chords outlining a simple root movement.

WIK: This differentiation of roles contrasts with equal-voice polyphony (in which similar lines move with rhythmic and melodic independence to form an even texture) and monophony (in which all parts move in unison or octaves).

Historically, homophony and its differentiated roles for parts emerged in tandem with tonality, which gave distinct harmonic functions to the soprano, bass and inner voices.

This definition underscores what I have always intuited; that counterpoint, polyphony, and monophony are "special case" scenarios. Tonality is about harmonic function, and that's harmony, not counterpoint.


----------



## Che2007

millionrainbows said:


> WIK: This differentiation of roles contrasts with equal-voice polyphony (in which similar lines move with rhythmic and melodic independence to form an even texture) and monophony (in which all parts move in unison or octaves).


Wiki solves all for people that don't study up.

Bob Dylan isn't really monophony if he has accompaniment of a chord progression. That is a simple form of polyphony. Monophony means there is only one voice (whether many people are contributing to it or not). If there are two voices (guitar chord and voice for example) then it is a polyphonic texture. Maybe you mean to say homophonic? But that still doesn't preclude counterpoint.

Even further to that, a single voice can easily outline a polyphonic structure, see for example Bach's Sonatas and Partitas for solo violin for an extreme example.

Really this thread should be dead because there is nothing to debate: counterpoint and harmony are two sides of the same thing. Music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> Wiki solves all for people that don't study up.


I see it as just a convenient way to post definitions.



> Bob Dylan isn't really monophony if he has accompaniment of a chord progression.


Well, I said it was homophonic, not monophony, if that's what you're accusing me of saying.



millions said:


> ~If the texture is homophonic, such as a folk singer like Bob Dylan being accompanied by a guitar, then the very nature of the musical texture makes us hear the guitar chords as harmonic entities, with the voice heard as a single line.


That's typical song form. Why would you question something like that unless you're trying to be contentious?



> That is a simple form of polyphony. Monophony means there is only one voice (whether many people are contributing to it or not). If there are two voices (guitar chord and voice for example) then it is a polyphonic texture. Maybe you mean to say homophonic?


 I already did.



> But that still doesn't preclude counterpoint. Even further to that, a single voice can easily outline a polyphonic structure, see for example Bach's Sonatas and Partitas for solo violin for an extreme example.


It depends on how you look at it. To me, the Bach solo partitas are examples of single lines which outline harmonic structures. For example, an arpeggio is not really an independent "contrapuntal" line because it serves only to outline a triad. Besides that, these are solo works. Why are you using them to bolster counterpoint? That seems way more tenuous than seeing them as being conceived harmonically. It also underscores the idea that harmony is just a different way of thinking, and derived from thinking of counterpoint as being consolidated into harmonic entities. It developed as an abstraction of melodic thinking. Then, as harmony developed, single-lines became what they were best at being: melodies on top of harmonic progressions, as in homophony.



> Really this thread should be dead because there is nothing to debate: counterpoint and harmony are two sides of the same thing. Music.


In a certain sense, but harmony is a more highly developed way of thinking. It's more expedient and convenient, and it makes more sense.

Counterpoint became useful again to Schoenberg, because in 12-tone there is no harmonic thinking. That demonstrates that counterpoint is best seen as simply a vehicle for the development of harmony. On its own, counterpoint is rather archaic, and served Schoenberg well when he used it in the 12-tone context. Without harmonic thinking, counterpoint is meaningless in the harmonic sense. It's ambiguous.


----------



## Che2007

You definitely had monophony. You might have edited it out but when I was looking you said monophony not homophony.

From Gregory Proctors PhD dissertation: "The discipline of counterpoint is, then, the study of chord generation, and the discipline of harmony is the study of layers of counterpoint."

I think that echoes my point pretty well. Any value judgement you want to make about counterpoint and harmony is really singular to you and not representative of practice or general thought on the matter.


----------



## millionrainbows

Che2007 said:


> You definitely had monophony. You might have edited it out but when I was looking you said monophony not homophony.


No, I didn't change 'monophony' to 'homophony.' I think you saw the WIK definition of 'homophony' I quoted, and jumped on it before you really read it, and went into attack mode:



> WIK: This differentiation of roles contrasts with equal-voice polyphony (in which similar lines move with rhythmic and melodic independence to form an even texture) and monophony (in which all parts move in unison or octaves).





> From Gregory Proctors PhD dissertation: "The discipline of counterpoint is, then, the study of chord generation, and the discipline of harmony is the study of layers of counterpoint."
> 
> I think that echoes my point pretty well. Any value judgement you want to make about counterpoint and harmony is really singular to you and not representative of practice or general thought on the matter.


That's a nice, tidy little quote, but historically, monophony and counterpoint came first, and harmonic thinking developed out of that, after the functions had been standardized. Some of that early vocal music, like what I listened to last night, by Jean de Castro, called Regina Coeli A 5 (1588), you can tell the harmonic function is still in its developmental stages. Chords change in strange ways, and the whole piece sounds rather circular. Later composers, like Orlando di Lasso and his Missa Susanne Un Jour sound much more developed. I use my ears when I listen, and that coincides neatly with practice and general thought on the matter, thank you.


----------

