The benefits and relevance of learning counterpoint

[WattsUrizen]

I really should have posted this earlier, instead of just dumping a load of abstract musical theory on your laps. I think this thread should clarify many questions you may have already asked, want to ask, or may need to ask in the future.

 

The first important step we need to take is to see music as an organic entity. It is an entity which, by virtue of its content and global structure, creates movement. The problem with chord grammar type analysis, is that all it does is label the chords, but never actually seeks to understand their function in the piece of music. What results is a group of singular entities, seemingly oblivious to those around it, and we are still in the dark as to the deeper relationships between the chords and the entire piece of music.

 

Since music involves motion, this motion has some sort of direction. This direction can be rather aimless, or it can be extremely well defined. In any case, the direction is defined by the goal. Every piece of music has a certain structure, and it is this structure which places certain goals for the music to move to. From this, it is not difficult to see that what we should be looking for in analysing music, is to understand the significance of chords and notes in creating motion towards that structural goal. Also, it should become clear that in this situation, two chords which have the same grammatical identity (for instance, two chords with the label V) may have significantly different functions.

 

What one comes to is the distinction between structure and prolongation. We have those chords which are powerful in their effect and far reaching in their influence: These are the chords towards which motion is directed. These are the structural chords. Then we have those chords which are used to create motion between the structural chords. These are the prolonging chords. It has been known for quite a while that one of the great things about music conceived on a sophisticated structural basis - such as Beethoven, Brahms, Bach, et al - is the interplay between the structure and the content. Indeed, this is the interplay between structure and prolongation. It should be clear that there are not two stages of functions: There are varying degrees of structure, and varying degrees of prolongation - one can prolong a prolonging chord, for instance. The most important point, and the significance of this distinction between structure and prolongation, is that this is how we actually hear a piece of music. We don't hear music as a series of isolated and fragmented chords/sections/phrases (as chord grammar tends to show), but as a continuous organic entity, whose overarching structure is prolonged through artistic unity and variety.

 

So having this distinction in hand, we can now make another distinction, that between harmony and counterpoint. It's most common to hear of harmony as the 'vertical' aspect of music, and counterpoint as the 'horizontal' aspect of music. This is usually not a bad way to conceive of these two, but there is more to it. Chord grammar has fooled many people into thinking that all chords are of harmonic origin, and that counterpoint is merely about independent voice leading and techniques such as canon, fugue, stretto, etc. However, this is most certainly not the case, as there is significant interplay between the two aspects, and indeed, this is one of the most important aspects of tonal music.

 

Harmony is based upon the overtone series, most specifically, the I-V-I relationship. We won't go through it here, but it suffices to say that chords are only of harmonic origin if they play a role in this I-V-I motion. The harmonic progressions one can have are I-II-V-I, I-III-V-I, I-IV-V-I. Notice that the introduced chord in each case is before the dominant. This is important, so as to maintain the dominant to tonic relationship. There is also a secondary progression I-VI-V-I, where the VI arises from inversion of the III. The point to keep in mind with these progressions is that they are related on a harmonic basis, the 'vertical' aspect, if you will.

 

So it should be clear now that chords which are not related through the harmonic aspect, but through horizontal tendencies - motion, direction, embellishment, etc - are chords which arise from counterpoint: Contrapuntal chords. These are chords which arise from voice leading, and indeed these are the chords which predominate in tonal music. A further analogy we can make of the difference between the contrapuntal and the harmonic, is that of motion and stability.

 

However, to learn the distinction between the two in an effective manner, we need to learn about each aspect separately, so we can learn about the characteristics of each aspect in its most pure form. Counterpoint is independent of harmony, since we do not discuss the dominant-tonic relation in any way. However in harmony we can not escape the contrapuntal influence, since a harmonic progression requires some degree of organised horizontal motion. This in itself is sufficient to show that counterpoint is the first aspect of music that should be learned. It also shows that the horizontal aspect of music is the most important: It is the element of motion which drives music.

 

Since music is motion, it is best to learn to move first in simple lines, intervals and chords, before we look at the organising power of harmony. Counterpoint is a discipline which promotes horizontal hearing, since it encourages us to think and plan ahead. It encourages to conceive of music as a temporal entity, a moving entity.

 

Species counterpoint is perhaps the most effective way to learn counterpoint, since it reduces it to its fundamental characteristics, without the influence of any other musical aspects (harmony, form, chromaticism, etc). This method of teaching arose from the analysis of sixteenth century polyphony, most specifically, the work of Palestrina. So why is sixteenth century music being used to teach students of today, what possible relevance could it have? Indeed, why should we follow these abstract rules, if others such as Bach and Mozart seemed to disregard them? Usually this is answered as being the distinction between 'strict' and 'free' style. But nowhere do we understand what this connection between strict and free is. Obviously, there has to be a connection, otherwise learning the strict style is a pointless exercise.

 

The truth is, there is no contradiction between a work by Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc and the so-called strict counterpoint. One must understand when learning counterpoint, that we are learning an abstraction, we are learning about the fundamental aspects of counterpoint in its purest form, without the influence of other aspects. Counterpoint is not composition, it is an element of composition. Composition also involves harmony, form, chromaticism, motivic design, etc. So when we see that apparently the rules of counterpoint have been broken, what we are seeing is 'strict' counterpoint being prolonged through the use of other musical aspects. With this in mind, it seems much more precise to relabel that which we call 'strict' counterpoint, 'pure' counterpoint. What which appears to be 'free' counterpoint is not a disregarding of 'pure' counterpoint, but through the addition and influence of other elements of composition.

 

So to those interested in composing tonal music, learning counterpoint is of immense relevance and benefit, since it teaches not only immediate aspects such as voice leading, but the far reaching aspect of motion. Music is motion, and it is counterpoint which teaches us to understand how that motion functions.

[mukuzi]

You

[WattsUrizen]

I'm studying at Melbourne uni, but not music.

 

It's not really a complex approach. It's just about seeing music as an entity which lives and breathes through the interplay of its contents. Not all of the notes in a piece of music have the same level of importance. Counterpoint is a significant aspect of all music, so by learning counterpoint, we are in a better position to judge which notes are more important, and even more profoundly, how these notes function.

[fingerpicker]

I had to study 18th century counterpoint in college and it bored me to tears. While I'm sure there are benifits, it was making music painful! I compose and create in a different way I guess.

[mukuzi]

 

Originally posted by Anomandaris The problem with chord grammar type analysis, is that all it does is label the chords, but never actually seeks to understand their function in the piece of music. What results is a group of singular entities, seemingly oblivious to those around it, and we are still in the dark as to the deeper relationships between the chords and the entire piece of music.

 

 

I thort about this last night, and this is the (only) part of your amazing analysis I disagree with.

I feel when the chords are labelled properly they become part of an overall logic that can only be seen when the fukkin chords are labelled properly as they are hardly ever labelled properly

So I see this situation in your example and explanation to be entirely self-defeating

allmost every peace of music i see on paper has illogical lables attached to chords

so untill the publishers of these rags get there {censored} together your theory has no basis in factual reality

but its pretty amazing anyway

rock on:cool:

[WattsUrizen]

 

Originally posted by skatan I thort about this last night, and this is the (only) part of your amazing analysis I disagree with. I feel when the chords are labelled properly they become part of an overall logic that can only be seen when the fukkin chords are labelled properly as they are hardly ever labelled properly So I see this situation in your example and explanation to be entirely self-defeating allmost every peace of music i see on paper has illogical lables attached to chords so untill the publishers of these rags get there {censored} together your theory has no basis in factual reality but its pretty amazing anyway rock on:cool:

 

 

I don't really think it matters what the chords are labelled, since as I mentioned above, two chords with the same grammatical label can have significantly different functions.

 

And that is the problem with chord grammar, it doesn't tell you the significance of chords to the piece of music, it only tells you what they are called. Rather superficial.

 

Amaj7 doesn't really tell one very much, but to discover that the Amaj7 is also a contrapuntal-passing-chord is much more profound.

[mukuzi]

i agree

so if/when the chords are labled corectly there easier to link together

my beef is the chords have the wrong lables on them most of the time

you must know the difference?

[WattsUrizen]

 

Originally posted by skatan i agree so if/when the chords are labled corectly there easier to link together my beef is the chords have the wrong lables on them most of the time you must know the difference?

 

 

Yup, but one can only understand what the 'correct' label is if one understands counterpoint.

[mukuzi]

chicken and the egg....

 

i love the last paragraph

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

"So to those interested in composing tonal music, learning counterpoint is of immense relevance and benefit, since it teaches not only immediate aspects such as voice leading, but the far reaching aspect of motion. Music is motion, and it is counterpoint which teaches us to understand how that motion functions."

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

 

cool thread. thanks

[Fred5]

Very interesting stuff, Anomandaris. Thanks!

[babybatter]

Awesome post, Big A.