Hello Dear Forumers. :) Very happy to write my first post.
I'm an amateur and like to study works of classical masters to see how certain things are done and among other things I also try to grasp counterpoint theory and learn about species. Recently I listened and analysed the score of Beethoven's 9th symphony's 2nd movement molto vivace and was struck how the strings are written:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5favl2Qtx0
So when I looked at the score I could not grasp what is going on here because sometimes for example there are parallel thirds descending between two voices when another voice go opposite direction, sometimes the rhythm is hanging on one note, change of octavesetc. You can see the strings "bricks" in the video so you'll see what I mean. I can't understand how it is written, is it note against note counterpoint with rules broken? I have a hard time to figure out which voice is written against which voice if that makes sense. :)
I also have a side question for things like Bach:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y_L0-aqLLs
I was taught by the materials that two voices should generally be in opposite direction or oblique motion for the best effect, but this uses parallel motions almost all the time from the beginning minus the leaps on every first note in the group. Bach's ear dictated this or are there other principles behind this?
Thank you.
Replies
I'm going to hit them over the head with a celery.
That's given me an idea for using vegetables in the root position....sorry, couldn't resist..:-)
As long as celery is "the tonic"...http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/nyregion/answers-to-questions-abo...
Thanks Bob https://soundcloud.com/bob-morabito
In general avant-gardism isn't that popular any more among the "elite" in Europe. Avant-gardism was heavily subsidized, but there were some major cuts in the arts. The younger generation of composers prefer to write tonal music (you might call it "modal", but to us "modal" means in a church key).
Hi Rowy--The subsidized part Ive read and am familiar with (IRCAM) but I honestly really do find it hard to believe that the younger generation prefers to write tonal music.
I think this opinion is firstly heavily influenced by what kind of composing a person does, and then what kinds of groups and concerts they choose to join, come in contact with, and attend, etc. Surrounded by like minded people, its very easy then to mistakenly think EVERYONE is writing the kind of music they are.
Also I think much modern music takes a greater deal of effort to compose, hence the somewhat easier route with simpler tonal music, and even improvising, most of which is atonal I feel for for obvious reasons. I note I do heartily applaud those who write tonally but find a way to make it new and fresh, and own it. This is very impressive to me, but I really dont see much of it. But again, what I wrote in my paragraph above applies to me also, although I do listen to newly composed music in many genres for hours a day.
And lastly there are those who simply hate it, and Ive reserved MANY stalks of celery for them :)
Again Rowy in all kindness and fairness I feel your take on new music is cursory, and isnt wholly accurate as to what it is, and the number of those who want to and are actually playing new music. It will really surprise you.
Not really. I guess it's different in your country. Maybe we're more modern over here :-
:) Again, I still think your take on this is from an outsider cursorily looking in, and not someone deeply entrenched in composing and performing 'modern music'..again, just my opinion. Please feel free to disagree.
By the way, as a young composer I wrote atonal and serial music for some time,
GOOD FOR YOU!!
However when I ask to hear some of this when others have made such a claim, it usually never materializes or is sad to say not very well done, and in many ways lacking.
Do you have something I might listen to? Id enjoy it very much!
Thanks Bob https://soundcloud.com/bob-morabito
Thanks, Dave-- much appreciated.
Thanks Bob https://soundcloud.com/bob-morabito
Dave Dexter said:
Hi Amol,
a reply just on J. J. Fux
Fux wrote his book as a kind of instruction on composition. He came up with the idea of species counterpoint though, as a didactic method. So far so good, but there it is in the outset of his concept the first and probably biggest underlying antinomy: Species counterpoint is not observable as a compositional practice in the composers whose works he professes to explore, (mainly Catholic employs of the Vatican, in an effort to re-state the holy catholic dogma and faith, aesthetically in this instance, and using music as the main vehicle, in the massive counter-reformation movement that followed Luther's new taking of the scriptures ).
For example, his main field of observance is Palestrina's work, and although he extracts from it quite a few technical and aesthetic rules for inclusion in his "Gradus", he leaves the average student/listener with a few unanswerable questions.
One of them may be: Since Palestrina hardly ever wrote anything in less than three voices, why should one study Fux's exposition of two-part counterpoint in all its species?
Or, am I being taught Palestrina's style or Palestrina's technique?
Palestrina's technique, imho, is not very well demonstrated in Fux's book, while Palestrina's aesthetic or style is, again in my opinion, "Let’s keep things serene, angelic, holy, quite, or whatever else, to please the pope and the cardinals". This aesthetic is good as far as it goes and through Palestrina's effort left us with great works of music, but not for one moment it can be stated that this style is representative of the 16th century in general, or this aesthetic has been shared by most of Palestrina's contemporaries in their contrapuntal practice, be it for secular or religious works.
Of course the easy answer usually given is that if we learn well all the rules in two-part writing, most of them are valid and can easily be applied to three and more parts. Fair enough, but is it absolutely necessary to do all these 4 species, i.e. note against note, two notes against one, four notes against one, and suspension dissonances and their resolutions, before we come to the 5th species and can actually start to compose something of interest or artistic merit?
Where are all these species (in the way Fux proposes them) observable in works of any 16th century composer, including Palestrina?
Simple answer: in no one's works.
Academic disciplinarian teachers will tell you that Fux's method is necessary and good (or for your "own good" - in that aspect I find them as ridiculous and patronizing as Freudian psychologists), while more open-minded people will point you towards actual great works of the 16th century, if your aim is to truly learn its aesthetic style and contrapuntal techniques. So, we don’t start and end with Palestrina (or Fux's take on him), we may start there, but there is an ocean of 16th century music that we are going to miss completely just by studying only "Gradus ad Parnassum".
In my opinion, theoreticians like Fux and much later like Kitson, failed miserably to realize that Palestrina's style was primarily a modal style of music involving all western diatonic modes, and thus wrote their treatises on counterpoint based on him from the tonal point of view (and at the same time, as I said, by ignoring the modal/tonal practices of all other 16th century composers).
At all events, "Gradus" with its tonal rather than modal orientation, was the only book available in the 18th century and this is why it was studied by composers such as Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. But as others have very effectively argued, and I agree with all who did, none of these great composers wrote their music according to Fux's rules.
If you are further interested in Palestrina and his true style, the early 20th century study of this style by Danish musicologist Knud Jeppesen would provide you with much admirable historical, aesthetic and technical material, although he sticks with the method of species counterpoint, his approach is much more serious than that of Fux, and the study a hell of a lot more enjoyable - including some well-founded criticism of Fux.
I think you can download it free from here:
https://archive.org/details/counterpointpoly00jepp
or there may be other url addresses available, sorry I didn’t look much into it.
If on the other hand, you're fed up with Fux, or Palestrina or that sort of stuff, but you still think that the study of 16th century vocal (and by extension instrumental) counterpoint is a knowledge worth having for any composer, then there are alternative routes, probably more enjoyable also. For example, one can forget completely about Palestrina, download the complete works of Josquin de Prez, find all the youtube related videos and start from scratch his contrapuntal studies with Josqin. And, btw, you are going to meet there with true two-part writing in actual works of art, that you cannot meet with in Palestrina's output. It's all there for free now a days! In my student days I had to invest nearly all my meagre income for those bloody books, scores and recordings. :-)
"It's very... interesting" is code for "I don't feel at all taken by it." If the first thing people say about my music is that it is "interesting" or "different" to them, I will feel as though I have failed.
Rowy van Hest said:
which was a less pedantic book than the species book by Swindon I also ploughed through. The Morris is an excellent read and full of music from the literature rather than isolated footballs in 2 parts.
The subsidized part Ive read and am familiar with (IRCAM) but I honestly really do find it hard to believe that the younger generation prefers to write tonal music.
They do and it's not my fault, because I couldn't care less :-)
I think this opinion is firstly heavily influenced by what kind of composing a person does...
Doesn't the same apply to you? And would it make any difference, if you're exercising a style that's going to disappear?
Again, I still think your take on this is from an outsider cursorily looking in, and not someone deeply entrenched in composing and performing 'modern music'..again, just my opinion. Please feel free to disagree.
I disagree. Still, the same goes for you. I'm getting a bit worried by now. Is it really that important that others except your style?
However when I ask to hear some of this when others have made such a claim, it usually never materializes or is sad to say not very well done, and in many ways lacking.
I wrote the modern stuff when I was young. And then I grew up and destroyed it :-)
I'm almost afraid to listen to your music now :-)
Daniel Zarb-Cousin said:
Mike Hewer said:
I already said that it also does affect me, but that I do spend hours each and every day to listening to newly composed music of all genres. So I am still hearing a broad spectrum of whats out there, of all kinds, and perhaps you might do the same just to get a fair opinion. Thanks.
I'm getting a bit worried by now. Is it really that important that others except your style?
No not at all, not in the least--accepting my style or music, or not is simply left to everyone to decide on their own--but if something you perceive such as this worries you, well maybe we'll end this discussion. It isnt worth worrying about Rowy.
I wrote the modern stuff when I was young. And then I grew up and destroyed it :-)
Grew up? Well thats a matter of opinion.LOL..however it usually ALWAYS goes this way, Rowy..many say, such as you that they've done it, and then when pressed for examples, there's never anything to have a good listen to. Ah well, I expected it to be this. Thanks anyways.
Thanks for the discussion..lets leave it as this as you shouldnt worry about things, much less this. And its also off topic.
Thanks Bob https://soundcloud.com/bob-morabito
Rowy van Hest said:
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next