# Masters of counterpoint



## Perotin

I like intricate counterpoint, especially in Bach's music and would like to get recommendations for further listening. There are already several threads opened that deal with this topic, and reading through them I got to know some new names, that sound fairly obscure to me, like Fux, Zelenka, Taneyev, Reger. So, can you list 5 (or 10 if you like) top counterpoint composers (please limit yourselves to those, that are generally accepted as being good at this)?


----------



## violadude

Do you mean counterpoint in a general sense, or in a more specific sort of imitative sense?


----------



## tdc

These come to mind for me:

*Mendelssohn* - try the String Symphonies
*Bartok *- String Quartets, Divertimento for Strings etc
*Eliott Carter* - thoroughly trained in counterpoint and innovative uses of it - used counterpoint between entire movements

edit - also *Monteverdi* - try his Vespers of 1610


----------



## Weston

I'll second the *Mendelssohn* string symphonies and the *Monteverdi* Vespers.

I'll add *W. F. Bach* and to a lesser extent (for me) *C.P.E. Bach*. W.F. had some very quirky melodic lines making the counterpoint that much more enjoyable.

Another favorite of mine is *Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck*. His _Variations on Mein junges Leben hat ein End_ is just wow! on whatever instrument is used.


----------



## aleazk

*Johannes Ockeghem*:


----------



## KenOC

I'll put in a word for Beethoven. He's generally not considered to be a "natural" fugalist, but when you consider the many highly effective fugues and fugatos scattered through his music, it's a huge accomplishment. He wasn't very well-suited to writing for the voice either, but somehow managed to turn out the Missa...


----------



## Novelette

Cherubini--he managed to solve all of Padre Martini's riddle canons, the first to do so. His contrapuntal works are absolutely breathtaking, although none of his works are so common.

One can hear wonderful polyphonic counterpoint in the Chant Sur La Mort De Haydn.

One massive fugue after another in his Missa Solemnis in D Minor, "Per il Principe Esterházy", although the fugue in the Cum Sancto Spiritu movement is my favorite in that work.

Still, perhaps the most remarkably complex counterpoint in Cherubini is in his monumental Credo a 8, for which no recording exists that is accessible to me. At least I have the score to pore over. 

Edit: I can hardly think of anyone more dogmatic about the rules of counterpoint and harmony than Cherubini. If a particular modulation was deemed inelegant by the ancients, he obeyed very strictly. Major harmonic innovation was basically anathema to him, although innovation _per se_ was not heretical to him. What amazes me is the majestic music that such a staunch pedant consistently produced. There is little of his music that I find uncompelling: perhaps only his last opera Ali Baba.


----------



## brianvds

I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Thomas Tallis' "Spem in alium". 

For something more modern, try out Shostakovich's 24 preludes and fugues. Hovhaness also liked counterpoint and turned out quite a bit of it. 

The first movement of Bartok's "Music for strings, percussion and celesta" is wondrously contrapuntal.


----------



## KenOC

brianvds said:


> The first movement of Bartok's "Music for strings, percussion and celesta" is wondrously contrapuntal.


I've always seen the first movement of the MSP&C as being the third in a great series: First, the C# minor fugue from Book 1 of Bach's WTC; second, Beethoven's opening fugue, also in C# minor, from the Op. 131 string quartet; and finally, the Bartok. Is the connection only imaginary?


----------



## Novelette

brianvds said:


> I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Thomas Tallis' "Spem in alium".


Ooh, polyphony is divine, and Tallis is among the greatest masters of that era!

I only recently obtained the complete works of Tallis and hadn't worked my way up to the Music for Queen Elizabeth I, of which "Spem in alium" is a part. I am listening to it now, quite magnificent!


----------



## Marisol

Since the Kronos Quartet came up in another topic:


----------



## Andolink

Look up composers who worked in the Ars Subtilor style in the late 14th to early 15th century in France and northern Italy. The incredibly intricate and extravagant counterpoint of that music should be right up your alley.


----------



## brianvds

Novelette said:


> Ooh, polyphony is divine, and Tallis is among the greatest masters of that era!
> 
> I only recently obtained the complete works of Tallis and hadn't worked my way up to the Music for Queen Elizabeth I, of which "Spem in alium" is a part. I am listening to it now, quite magnificent!


It would get my vote as greatest piece of choral music ever, if anyone feels like starting a poll...


----------



## brianvds

Marisol said:


> Since the Kronos Quartet came up in another topic:


Very nice! Never thought one could play it this way!


----------



## millionrainbows

Perotin said:


> I like intricate counterpoint, especially in Bach's music and would like to get recommendations for further listening...So, can you list 5 (or 10 if you like) top counterpoint composers (please limit yourselves to those, that are *generally accepted* as being good at this)?


*Generally?* Are you selling short-term car insurance?

1. Vincent Persichetti: the opening fugue of String Quartet No. 1, Op.7

2. Bach: The art of fugue, arranged for string quartet, several versions available

3. Moondog: Rounds (CBS)

4. Charles Ives: Symphony No. 4, III: Fugue

5. Samuel Barber: Piano Sonata, Op. 26: IV. Fuga: Allegro con spirito

6. Bach: Passacaglia and Fugue, for organ in C minor, BWV 582 (BC J79): Vol. 4-1963 & 65/Command Performances
Bach; Mozart; Mendelssohn; etc (Composer), Virgil Fox (Performer) http://amzn.com/B000BVB098

7. Saint Saens: Organ Symphony; http://amzn.com/B000002Z22


----------



## Marisol

Let's not forget Bach.
First one is BWV 225:


----------



## Marisol

Orlando Gibbons:


----------



## Andreas

pre-Bach:
Palestrina
Josquin
Sweelinck
Froberger

20th c.:
Hindemith
Barber
Shostakovich
Schoenberg
Hovhaness
Honegger


----------



## Perotin

violadude said:


> Do you mean counterpoint in a general sense, or in a more specific sort of imitative sense?


In general sense.



> Generally? Are you selling short-term car insurance?


I wanted to exclude subjective judgments of posters.


----------



## Perotin

Thank you. I shall listen to your recommendations. Any further suggestions still wellcomed.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Bach
Schoenberg
Mendelssohn
Carter
Mozart


----------



## norman bates

Hindemith and Reger without a doubt. In a more jazzy style I would add Alec Wilder too.


----------



## Andreas

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Bach
> Schoenberg
> Mendelssohn
> Carter
> Mozart


Strange, I've always considered Mozart one of the least contrapuntal composers I know. I mean, he did write some contrapuntal things (the obligatory fugues in his sacred works, the Jupiter finale, his Bach arrangements). But to me, his counterpoint generally seems kind of gimmicky and not really part of his DNA, so to speak.


----------



## Perotin

C.P.E. Bach wrote this to Forkel, Bach's biographer: " JS Bach esteemed highly Fux, Caldara, Handel, Kayser (Keiser), Hasse, both Grauns, Telemann, Zelenka, Benda, and in general everything that was worthy of esteem in Berlin and Dresden. Except for Fux, Caldara, Handel and Kayser, he knew the rest personally." 

Are there any good counterpoint composers among these? In previous threads, Zelenka and Fux have been already mentioned.


----------



## tdc

For the record I too consider J.S. Bach to be the master of counterpoint, I didn't list him because I assumed the OP was looking for additional composers to the names they already said they were aware of in the original post.


----------



## WavesOfParadox

Schoenberg

Here's a cool analysis if anybody is interested:
http://www.eunomios.org/contrib/stolz1/stolz1.pdf


----------



## PetrB

Guillaume de Machaut
Stravinsky
Bartok
Messiaen
Vaughan Williams
Hindemith
Milhaud
Boulez
Brahms
Schoenberg
Berg
Webern
Reger
Berio
William Schuman
Schumann
Chopin
Debussy
Ives
Monteverdi
...etc....

P.s. this abbreviated list omits almost all those from the entire late medieval - renaissance, and omits also dozens of other composers whose counterpoint was an essential part of their masterly work.


----------



## brianvds

norman bates said:


> Hindemith and Reger without a doubt. In a more jazzy style I would add Alec Wilder too.


Speaking of a jazzy style, Claude Bolling's delightful jazz suites for various instruments often contain a lot of contrapuntal writing.


----------



## Marisol

PetrB said:


> Chopin


Chopin a master of counterpoint?


----------



## PetrB

Marisol said:


> Chopin a master of counterpoint?


a-yup. Personally, I'm severely tired of many people thinking this north European style of Bach's is, altogether, the only counterpoint: that is nonsense. Counterpoint does not need to look like or sound like Bach (ala Hindemith, which does sound exactly like all the Thuringian spiel with new harmonies, ditto the Shostakovitch 24 preludes and fugues.)

People miss a lot of counterpoint as non-counterpoint because it may not be in contrary motion, for example (not a rule of counterpoint) and most often (Debussy) because it sounds, acts, nothing like Bach.

Chopin's prelude in E minor is nothing but counterpoint, for example (parallel chromatic lines, a non-melody "melody" and only two functioning chords in this short piece, I, V, I. That is counterpoint of a very high order.) The first and fourth Ballades are both of interest here, too.

...Bach is as over-lionized as are both poor Mozart and Beethoven (Beethoven with the 'awe he went deaf' sob-glamor card), and this only distorts reports and assessment of their true genius and the real value of their works. Bach is often spoken of as if the old Thuringian invented both counterpoint and the one style of it he worked within, and that was all the counterpoint worth writing anyone ever wrote. The sentimental notion he "wrote everything to the glory of God" really hooks some people, and others find in his music, and nowhere else, some bizarre notion that the music is the virtual model of the cosmos -- go figure -- if that is the cosmos, it is an 18th century timepiece, not even very Newtonian, but there it is, cosmos in a handful of notes in a ricercar with crab cancrizans or a fugue. _[Bah Humbug!]_


----------



## Marisol

Chopin, in my opinion, is an average composer who composed nice rhythmic melodies well written for the piano. To claim he is a master of counterpoint is in my opinion beyond absurd.

However I am not going debate against "Chopin being a master of counterpoint" my experience in the Mozart topic was enough to realize that many here chose myth over fact and that buddies stack up to support and ridicule instead of arguing points.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marisol said:


> Chopin, in my opinion, is an average composer who composed nice rhythmic melodies well written for the piano. To claim he is a master of counterpoint is in my opinion beyond absurd.


PetrB even defined what he meant and explained his position. All you've done is state the opposite without giving any argument or explaining how your definition differs from his.

For what it's worth (if you can countenance the idea that people have differing views), Charles Rosen also called Chopin and Mozart masters of counterpoint.



Marisol said:


> However I am not going debate against "Chopin being a master of counterpoint" my experience in the Mozart topic was enough to realize that many here chose myth over fact and that buddies stack up to support and ridicule instead of arguing points.


Thanks for the analysis.


----------



## Kieran

Marisol said:


> Chopin, in my opinion, is an average composer who composed nice rhythmic melodies well written for the piano. To claim he is a master of counterpoint is in my opinion beyond absurd.
> 
> However I am not going debate against "Chopin being a master of counterpoint" my experience in the Mozart topic was enough to realize that many here chose myth over fact and that buddies stack up to support and ridicule instead of arguing points.


Facts are a terrible hindrance, aren't they...


----------



## Marisol

Mahlerian said:


> Charles Rosen also called Chopin and Mozart masters of counterpoint.


It is actually far worse he claimed that "Chopin was the greatest contrapuntist since Mozart".


----------



## PetrB

Marisol said:


> Chopin, in my opinion, is an average composer who composed nice rhythmic melodies well written for the piano. To claim he is a master of counterpoint is in my opinion beyond absurd.
> 
> However I am not going debate against "Chopin being a master of counterpoint" my experience in the Mozart topic was enough to realize that many here chose myth over fact and that buddies stack up to support and ridicule instead of arguing points.


Well, I'll keep your delusions intact rather than bother to dig up all the learned references and appreciations of Chopin's deployment of counterpoint, let alone his wildly daring and innovative harmony, or Mozart (not just the flamingly obvious Bach-like fugue oner) or any other composer, just to preserve your sense of high learned-ness, while that learned-ness and the "facts" you seem to have accumulated may seem, uh, absurd to some.

Mozart was a master contrapuntist before he ever learned of Bach, just stating a fact.

Doesn't sound like Bach = not counterpoint is a matter for unpracticed and perhaps unlearned ears.


----------



## Andreas

Marisol said:


> It is actually far worse he claimed that "Chopin was the greatest contrapuntist since Mozart".


Oh my goodness.


----------



## PetrB

Marisol said:


> It is actually far worse he claimed that "Chopin was the greatest contrapuntist since Mozart".


I'm now thinking it is far worse that you think you know much of anything other than your heartfelt opinions.


----------



## Marisol

PetrB said:


> I'm now thinking it is far worse that you think you know much of anything other than your heartfelt opinions.


"_Although he was never tempted by the strict fugue to write one except as an academic exercise, he was the greatest master of counterpoint since Mozart." _
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/07/charles-rosen-chopin/?pagination=false


----------



## PetrB

Marisol said:


> "_Although he was never tempted by the strict fugue to write one except as an academic exercise, he was the greatest master of counterpoint since Mozart." _
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/07/charles-rosen-chopin/?pagination=false


I'm not disputing THAT! LOL. I'm being constant here. The above is one citation you find outrageous and with which I wholeheartedly concur.

Your opinions, mediocre composer, etc. are... opinions. Why anyone would think their empiric opinion should have any force of weight when talking objectively about which composers were brilliant contrapuntists... uh. Nothing polite to say about that aspect.

But, hey, if you don't see it popping at you off the scores, or don't hear it, you don't see it or hear it.


----------



## Kieran

Chopin sounds even better than I thought - and I always thought he was magnificent!


----------



## Andreas

PetrB said:


> Chopin's prelude in E minor is nothing but counterpoint, for example (parallel chromatic lines, a non-melody "melody" and only two functioning chords in this short piece, I, V, I. That is counterpoint of a very high order.) The first and fourth Ballades are both of interest here, too.


I had a look at that prelude (op. 28 no. 4). Frankly, I can't see in what way it qualifies as counterpoint. Could you explain?


----------



## PetrB

Andreas said:


> I had a look at that prelude (op. 28 no. 4). Frankly, I can't see in what way it qualifies as counterpoint. Could you explain?


All those parallel chromatic lines (chroma - color) are independent lines. The melody (play it alone) is barely what one could call a melody but is a series of pitches perfectly chosen for their pivotal aspects, i.e. all the shifting underneath has everything to do with the context which colors them.

There is a huge mistaken notion that counterpoint must be in contrary motion -- this is a later idea, not a rule. Counterpoint is independent lines working together, in stricter species definition as set in ratio of so many pitches set against so many others.

That is all that Chopin prelude is, pure counterpoint, nothing else.

It is also used as a trick analysis assignment toward the mid / end of theory when studying the romantic era. 
Students have been crammed with labeling functioning chords, secondary dominants, and those "exotic" German and French sixth chords. The pitfall most students fall into is labeling every vertical in this piece, while the theoretic reality -- since function is still big on the screen -- is _there are no functioning harmonies in the thing other than the Tonic and Dominant_.

Since the piece is all about those chromatic horizontals, a line on top, note to note pivoting in our ears as to what context it has, and nothing else, what else could it be?


----------



## PetrB

Kieran said:


> Chopin sounds even better than I thought - and I always thought he was magnificent!


Robert Schumann, in several of his articles wearing the hat of music critic, said of Chopin:
"Hats off, ladies and gentlemen, a genius!"
... and about the music, "...cannon hidden in flowers."


----------



## PetrB

Marisol said:


> Chopin, in my opinion, is an average composer who composed nice rhythmic melodies well written for the piano. To claim he is a master of counterpoint is in my opinion beyond absurd.
> 
> However I am not going debate against "Chopin being a master of counterpoint" my experience in the Mozart topic was enough to realize that many here chose myth over fact and that buddies stack up to support and ridicule instead of arguing points.


The fact that Mozart aced modal counterpoint in Rome when in his early teens (where he wrote down the Allegri Miserere from memory) and that in all his works, the briefest and tiniest bit of one instrumental part in a large work is lyric, so essential to the whole that without it the whole structure would fall, evidently escapes your qualifications of "what is counterpoint."


----------



## Andreas

PetrB said:


> All those parallel chromatic lines (chroma - color) are independent lines. The melody (play it alone) is barely what one could call a melody but is a series of pitches perfectly chosen for their pivotal aspects, i.e. all the shifting underneath has everything to do with the context which colors them.
> 
> There is a huge mistaken notion that counterpoint must be in contrary motion -- this is a later idea, not a rule. Counterpoint is independent lines working together, in stricter species definition as set in ratio of so many pitches set against so many others.
> 
> That is all that Chopin prelude is, pure counterpoint, nothing else.
> 
> It is also used as a trick analysis assignment toward the mid / end of theory when studying the romantic era.
> Students have been crammed with labeling functioning chords, secondary dominants, and those "exotic" German and French sixth chords. The pitfall most students fall into is labeling every vertical in this piece, while the theoretic reality -- since function is still big on the screen -- is _there are no functioning harmonies in the thing other than the Tonic and Dominant_.
> 
> Since the piece is all about those chromatic horizontals, a line on top, note to note pivoting in our ears as to what context it has, and nothing else, what else could it be?


I appreciate that you took the time to elaborate on this.


----------



## PetrB

Andreas said:


> I appreciate that you took the time to elaborate on this.


You're welcome. Someplace on TC, I gave an analysis, quite similar. The piece and question cover two of some of my pet peeves:
1.) to be counterpoint, it must look and sound somewhat like what Bach did with it. _(Lol & HORRORS!)_
2.) Chopin wrote pretty music of little substance. _(Lol & HORRORS!)_


----------



## tdc

Yes, interesting discussion here. I also did not realize many of those composers PetrB listed were contrapuntal masters. I think to the layman counterpoint is often associated with Bach style counterpoint, so people use the word in this way even though it has a much wider definition. In a way its kind of like the problematic word 'tonal'. People often use the word to describe something familiar they hear, not necessarily what is theoretically going on.


----------



## Andreas

tdc said:


> I think to the layman counterpoint is often associated with Bach style counterpoint, so people use the word in this way even though it has a much wider definition.


Yes. I would guess, however, that most are aware of this strong association and accept it. That is, they, in a sense, silently agree on using the term counterpoint with the Bachian style as its most archetypical example. And those who don't are probably aware of that, too.


----------



## LordBlackudder




----------



## pjang23

An obscure little gem. Listen for the amen at 3:47


----------



## violadude

Marisol said:


> Chopin, in my opinion, is an average composer who composed nice rhythmic melodies well written for the piano.


Average composer of nice rhythmic melodies? You make him sound like Karl Jenkins or something :O You clearly have not heard some of his more daring works. There's plenty of great counterpoint in this piece. Some of it is even obvious!


----------



## Marisol

violadude said:


> You clearly have not heard some of his more daring works. There's plenty of great counterpoint in this piece. Some of it is even obvious!


I must be living in another universe.


----------



## violadude

Marisol said:


> I must be living in another universe.


That IS the suspicion one might have after reading your posts


----------



## Marisol

violadude said:


> That IS the suspicion one might have after reading your posts


Perhaps I should not be surprised in a forum where the statement "Chopin was the greatest contrapuntist since Mozart" is challenged by no one.


----------



## PetrB

Marisol said:


> Perhaps I should not be surprised in a forum where the statement "Chopin was the greatest contrapuntist since Mozart" is challenged by no one.


Welcome to the cognoscenti looneybin.


----------



## violadude

Marisol said:


> Perhaps I should not be surprised in a forum where the statement "Chopin was the greatest contrapuntist since Mozart" is challenged by no one.


Why should it be?


----------



## aleazk

Well, in any case, Chopin _does_ have a Bach-like piece!. It's even a fugue!:


----------



## aleazk

A landmark of Chopin's compositions is the way in which he uses the hemiola in order to create the ilusion of several lines at different speeds ("polytempi"):






This is a very famous example. At 8:26, the duplets in the left hand create a 3:2 with the triplets of the right hand. But if you see carefully those two bars, the notes which compose the melody in the right hand divide those two bars in nine equal pulses, while the grouping of the arpeggios in the left hand creates a division of those two bars in four equal pulses. So you have a 9:4 relationship there.
Only a master of polyphony does this kind of things.


----------



## Andreas

Well, it might be a matter of terminology to some extent. But if Chopin's preludes and Bach's Art of the Fugue equally qualify as contrapuntal, them the term is, to me, next to meaningless.


----------



## clavichorder

Those English Renaissance Guys...William Byrd, Orlando Gibbons, and the daring John Bull.


----------



## clavichorder

Regarding the counterpoint discussion, it is interesting to recognize that perpetually free ranging and logical(north german-ish) counterpoint is not the only thing in making someone a good contrapuntalist. I don't know how we'd ever determine qualitatively which is harder to do between that and another way of looking at counterpoint. And whether the point is if it was hard to do or not. 

Sorry, I don't make total sense. Anyway, Chopin has all these little "flower buds" in his music moving around nice and organically(imagery may not be necessary/insert image here). They aren't experienced as a bunch of hammering notes together in the right hands so why should that not be counterpoint? I suspect you'd find something like that in Tchaikovsky too, but Tchaikovsky maybe has it focused more on one line and enhanced with orchestral colors. I don't know. 

A good performer and pianist who likes to experience music contrapuntally could probably answer this question really well. I know PetrB plays piano. I am learning that as a pianist, you can follow lines more horizontally and be cogniscent of music that way, rather than one stack of notes after another. Its nice to experience things like that.


----------



## violadude

Andreas said:


> Well, it might be a matter of terminology to some extent. But if Chopin's preludes and Bach's Art of the Fugue equally qualify as contrapuntal, them the term is, to me, next to meaningless.


Not having a super specific meaning = meaningless??


----------



## clavichorder

So many different kinds of counterpoint play by different rules or are creative in not playing by certain rules...its hard to say who are the true masters. 

I'm pretty good at counterpoint in 30 second pieces that do nothing terribly groundbreaking in any significant sense.


----------



## Picander

I have seen only one mention to Josquin des Prez. He's so good...


----------



## Andreas

violadude said:


> Not having a super specific meaning = meaningless??


Well, to me anyways. So far, whenever I've encounter the term contrapuntal, it did refer to something quite specific. It's not identical to fugue or canon, of course, but it usually describes textures of independent and distinguishable voices simultaneously doing their own thing, so to speak, while building a unified whole.

A melody in the right hand and chords/arpeggios in the left, to me, does not fall into the same category.


----------



## ahammel

Andreas said:


> Well, to me anyways. So far, whenever I've encounter the term contrapuntal, it did refer to something quite specific. It's not identical to fugue or canon, of course, but it usually describes textures of independent and distinguishable voices simultaneously doing their own thing, so to speak, while building a unified whole.
> 
> A melody in the right hand and chords/arpeggios in the left, to me, does not fall into the same category.


If the chords/arpeggios are a recognizably independent voice, then that fits the definition of counterpoint you give perfectly.


----------



## Eschbeg

Andreas said:


> A melody in the right hand and chords/arpeggios in the left, to me, does not fall into the same category.


Here's an interesting thought experiment: is the first prelude from Book 1 of the WTC a contrapuntal piece? If not, why not? If so, does the same music cease to be contrapuntal when Gounod's "Ave Maria" melody is played along with it?


----------



## Marisol

Eschbeg said:


> Here's an interesting thought experiment: is the first prelude from Book 1 of the WTC a contrapuntal piece?


In my opinion, not. 
I think Bach wanted to start really slow with this very simple piece, perhaps he did not want to scare the students.


----------



## Eschbeg

Marisol said:


> In my opinion, not.
> I think Bach wanted to start really slow with this very simple piece, perhaps he did not want to scare the students.


What property of counterpoint do you find it to be lacking?


----------



## ahammel

Eschbeg said:


> Here's an interesting thought experiment: is the first prelude from Book 1 of the WTC a contrapuntal piece? If not, why not? If so, does the same music cease to be contrapuntal when Gounod's "Ave Maria" melody is played along with it?


I count one voice, but one could make the case that there's some very very very simple counterpoint going on in the bass note vs. the rest of the arpeggio.

I don't know that you can really take the counterpoint of a contrapuntal piece by _adding_ voices.


----------



## Marisol

I think this piece is actually so simple there is not really much to talk about.

I am getting slightly fearful that someone soon is going to state that this is Bach's finest composition and one of the highlights of the Western canon and then everybody else going to mumble: aye, it is, it is...........

But of course I am simply ignorant, I must miss the deep 'Les Adieux' feelings when this piece is played with feeling and rubato on a grand piano.


----------



## ahammel

Marisol said:


> I think this piece is actually so simple there is not really much to talk about.


The question wasn't "is it complicated?". The question was "is it contrapuntal?".


----------



## Andreas

Well then what is the minimum requirement for a piece to be contrapuntal? Surely not that "there is also something in the bass stave". Because if so, then, except plainchant, pretty much everything would be contrapuntal, and the attribute would lose its significance.


----------



## ahammel

Andreas said:


> Well then what is the minimum requirement for a piece to be contrapuntal?


Two independent voices. What counts as an 'independent voice' is, of course, a matter of interpretation in edge cases.

That doesn't mean that counterpoint means nothing, it just means that pedants may prefer to say "this piece employs extremely simple counterpoint" rather than "this piece has no counterpoint at all".


----------



## Andreas

ahammel said:


> Two independent voices. What counts as an 'independent voice' is, of course, a matter of interpretation in edge cases.


Perhaps then it depends on whether one considers (figured) bass accompaniments or chords/arpeggios to be independent voices.


----------



## PetrB

Andreas said:


> Well, it might be a matter of terminology to some extent. But if Chopin's preludes and Bach's Art of the Fugue equally qualify as contrapuntal, them the term is, to me, next to meaningless.


That is just narrow, and perhaps influenced by a bit of nationalist boosting of one local boy's reputation. Other great polyphonists, and not German? _Shocking... Horrors!_


----------



## PetrB

The extraordinarily sophisticated and complex counterpoint -- with a great multiplicity of lines -- the introduction to Le Sacre du Printemps.


----------



## Andreas

PetrB said:


> That is just narrow, and perhaps influenced by a bit of nationalist boosting of one local boy's reputation. Other great polyphonists, and not German? _Shocking... Horrors!_


Please. In an earlier post I named 10 masters of which 2 were German. Besides, Germany and nationalism, what a ridiculous notion ...


----------



## Eschbeg

Andreas said:


> Because if so, then, except plainchant, pretty much everything would be contrapuntal, and the attribute would lose its significance.


Ironically, the admission of harmony into medieval sacred music is precisely the moment when the concept of counterpoint--not just the phenomenon but the actual craft--was born. That is what counterpoint is, after all: rules and conventions governing the treatment and relationship of notes when they are played simultaneously. Whole treatises were written in order to prescribe how medieval musicians were allowed to correlate the horizontal and vertical aspects of organum, descant, and other genres of sacred music. So if we're going to exclude from our discussion of counterpoint music that doesn't meet a certain threshold of complexity, then we're going to have to exclude a lot of the music for which the craft of counterpoint was invented in the first place. I don't see much to be gained in doing that.


----------



## Eschbeg

Andreas said:


> Perhaps then it depends on whether one considers (figured) bass accompaniments or chords/arpeggios to be independent voices.


Agreed, I think it does depend on this. That's why I chose the C Major Prelude as an example: the relationship between individual voices seems pretty clearly discernible to me. The most obvious examples are the 4-3 suspensions between "bass" and "alto" in m. 26 and m. 30. The music is "just" a series of arpeggios, yes, but that doesn't preclude it also being a pretty consistent 5-voice texture.

That's also why I proposed Gounod's "Ave Maria" melody as a thought experiment: the same relationship between the individual voices of the arpeggios exists even though there is now a melody that those arpeggios are accompanying. So if a melody in the right hand over arpeggiated accompaniment in the left hand doesn't count as counterpoint, then we are left with the strange notion that those arpeggios are contrapuntal in one instance but not another.


----------



## Andreas

Eschbeg said:


> Ironically, the admission of harmony into medieval sacred music is precisely the moment when the concept of counterpoint--not just the phenomenon but the actual craft--was born. That is what counterpoint is, after all: rules and conventions governing the treatment and relationship of notes when they are played simultaneously. Whole treatises were written in order to prescribe how medieval musicians were allowed to correlate the horizontal and vertical aspects of organum, descant, and other genres of sacred music. So if we're going to exclude from our discussion of counterpoint music that doesn't meet a certain threshold of complexity, then we're going to have to exclude a lot of the music that led to the invention of counterpoint in the first place. I don't see much to be gained in doing that.


I have no training in music theory, but I sense a certain difference between harmony and counterpoint. Aren't they, after all, taught in separate classes?

Also, one wouldn't say, I guess, that some music is more harmonic than another. Harmonic seems more like a binary attribute: either something is harmonic (i.e. employing harmony/cadential syntax etc.) or it isn't. However, people do use contrapuntal in a comparative fashion, referring to some music as more/less contrapuntal than other music. That would indicate, to me, at least a certain spectrum of "contrapuntalness", if you like. Perhaps based on subjective perception, but still.

So I do think that it takes a certain level of rhythmically off-set, individual and, in a sense, non-functional melodic lines to create what is generally considered as a contrapuntal texture. Flashy, restless left-hand harmonic patterns may create the impression of a thick, voluminous texture, but to me, it's really just a harmonic backdrop and as such non-contrapuntal.


----------



## Mahlerian

Andreas said:


> So I do think that it takes a certain level of rhythmically off-set, individual and, in a sense, non-functional melodic lines to create what is generally considered as a contrapuntal texture. Flashy, restless left-hand harmonic patterns may create the impression of a thick, voluminous texture, but to me, it's really just a harmonic backdrop and as such non-contrapuntal.


The harmony is the skeletal reduction of the texture to its function and nothing more. If the individual parts within a chord or arpeggio move independently, then there is, on some level, counterpoint between them.


----------



## Eschbeg

Andreas said:


> I have no training in music theory, but I sense a certain difference between harmony and counterpoint.


They are different, yes, but related. Harmony is the precondition of counterpoint. As I said, the whole reason counterpoint was invented in the first place was because medieval musicians wanted to establish rules governing the use of harmony.



Andreas said:


> However, people do use contrapuntal in a comparative fashion, referring to some music as more/less contrapuntal than other music.


That seems accurate to me. But the question I was addressing was not whether a Chopin prelude is more or less contrapuntal than other composers, but whether a Chopin prelude can be called un-contrapuntal simply because it consists of a right-hand melody over a chordal or arpeggiated accompaniment.



Andreas said:


> So I do think that it takes a certain level of rhythmically off-set, individual and, in a sense, non-functional melodic lines to create what is generally considered as a contrapuntal texture.


That is the way most people understand the term, I think. It's just not a historically accurate definition. Strict organum was one of the first genres of sacred music to incorporate harmony, and it consisted entirely of melodic lines that are not rhythmically off-set at all. In his treatise on counterpoint, Fux even gave this type of counterpoint a name: first species counterpoint.


----------



## Marisol

Mahlerian said:


> The harmony is the skeletal reduction of the texture to its function and nothing more. If the individual parts within a chord or arpeggio move independently, then there is, on some level, counterpoint between them.


Then I suppose here are some more 'masters' of counterpoint working:


----------



## Andreas

Eschbeg said:


> Strict organum was one of the first genres of sacred music to incorporate harmony, and it consisted entirely of melodic lines that are not rhythmically off-set at all. In his treatise on counterpoint, Fux even gave this type of counterpoint a name: first species counterpoint.


Yes, similar to the four-part harmony of chorales. Contrapuntal in the sense that the individual parts observe certain rules (preference of contrary motion, no parallel fifths/octaves, etc.). But as far as the actual listening experience is concerned, by all four parts moving in sync, the effect is more of a plainchant-like quality, at least to me. One of the main attractions of counterpoint, however, seems to me the very element of rhythmic independence and the subsequent effect of a multi-layered texture as opposed to the lockstep movement of the chorale.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marisol said:


> Then I suppose here are some more 'masters' of counterpoint working:


I did specify independent....and anyway, in popular music, the voices against each other are not a part of the definition of the song/piece, which is usually defined by its lead sheet: chords and melody.

If you try to do this to the Bach C major prelude or Chopin, you'll find that a good deal of what makes the piece specifically itself (as distinguished from different interpretations or recordings of it) is lost.

The more this is true, the more contrapuntal/polyphonic the music is.


----------



## Marisol

Interestingly this contemporary piece does have some counterpoint, more in my opinion than the above mentioned prelude by the alleged master of counterpoint:


----------



## Sudonim

So far this discussion reminds me of this:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/this-war-will-destabilize-the-entire-mideast-regio,11534/

The reader is left to guess which side is which.


----------



## BurningDesire

I really enjoy the interplay of musical lines in Ives and Schoenberg. I think they were great contrapuntists in their own ways. ^^


----------



## Feathers

For me, Chopin's counterpoint is often buried inside the texture, sometimes "bubbling in and out" of the music, and I find it to be a very brilliantly pianistic way of composing, actually.


----------



## ahammel

Marisol said:


> Then I suppose here are some more 'masters' of counterpoint working:


'Contains extremely simple counterpoint' is not the same thing as 'demonstrates mastery of counterpoint'.


----------



## PetrB

Andreas said:


> Yes. I would guess, however, that most are aware of this strong association and accept it. That is, they, in a sense, silently agree on using the term counterpoint with the Bachian style as its most archetypical example. And those who don't are probably aware of that, too.


Yes, that is the general case: Bach's greatness is not over-rated, but the press he has gotten in those simple introductory music courses, and beyond, is beyond hyped overkill -- leaving many, more or less informed, with that very false notion that Bach = counterpoint and that counterpoint must work and sound pretty much like Bach.


----------



## PetrB

Andreas said:


> Please. In an earlier post I named 10 masters of which 2 were German. Besides, Germany and nationalism, what a ridiculous notion ...


Did not see that; I sincerely beg your pardon.


----------



## PetrB

ahammel said:


> If the chords/arpeggios are a recognizably independent voice, then that fits the definition of counterpoint you give perfectly.


and if they don't, then they are just configured harmonies


----------



## PetrB

Andreas said:


> I have no training in music theory, but I sense a certain difference between harmony and counterpoint. Aren't they, after all, taught in separate classes?
> 
> Also, one wouldn't say, I guess, that some music is more harmonic than another. Harmonic seems more like a binary attribute: either something is harmonic (i.e. employing harmony/cadential syntax etc.) or it isn't. However, people do use contrapuntal in a comparative fashion, referring to some music as more/less contrapuntal than other music. That would indicate, to me, at least a certain spectrum of "contrapuntalness", if you like. Perhaps based on subjective perception, but still.
> 
> So I do think that it takes a certain level of rhythmically off-set, individual and, in a sense, non-functional melodic lines to create what is generally considered as a contrapuntal texture. Flashy, restless left-hand harmonic patterns may create the impression of a thick, voluminous texture, but to me, it's really just a harmonic backdrop and as such non-contrapuntal.


You quite have it, and neatly, I think. Harmony is any two pitches sounding together.

It is completely a matter _if "the other notes" are done in such a way as to make the listener hear a second line, *of near or equal interest as the prime, and which could be considered on its own, a 'melodic' line.*_ The ear will be pulled to listen to both, or more, near equally.

There are a lot of tricks to give the illusion of a more single and independent voice in harmonic accompaniment, rhythmic, spacing, and those fall generally under the label 'false counterpoint.' Illusions of a second line, etc.

It is when they are considered independent enough that the ear is pulled to both, or the more, when it gets to be, more likely actual _counterpoint._

I'd add that in Chopin, Schumann, and others who were also masters, those pieces are riddled with counterpoint, without being a consistent process to which the musical entirety is subjected. One can find this as well in those Bach works which are not the rigorous fugues, ricecare, etc.


----------



## Andreas

PetrB said:


> I'd add that in Chopin, Schumann, and others who were also masters, those pieces are riddled with counterpoint, without being a consistent process to which the musical entirety is subjected. One can find this as well in those Bach works which are not the rigorous fugues, ricecare, etc.


Chopin and Schumann were probably among the first generation of composers who had pianos available to them that came close to today's quality. That is, producing the kind of lush and voluminous sound we are used to nowadays. And I think they exploited that with their general style of writing, i.e. their rousing and sonorous harmonies which, on earlier pianos, probably would have sound much thinner and drier. And perhaps along the way, the overall transparency and clarity, on which counterpoint kind of depends, got a little lost.


----------



## ahammel

PetrB said:


> There are a lot of tricks to give the illusion of a more single and independent voice in harmonic accompaniment, rhythmic, spacing, and those fall generally under the label 'false counterpoint.' Illusions of a second line, etc.


I'm not sure I grok this. Can you give an example of false counterpoint?


----------

