Re: 16th-century counterpoint and learning approaches

Hello, there, everyone, and here are a few remarks in response to the
discussion of 16th-century counterpoint.

First, an important caution: people who have actually taught
16th-century counterpoint, or who have learned from a single book,
might be in a much better position to make recommendations than I am.

What I can offer is maybe a bit of background and philosophical
outlook, which people can take or leave in following their own
approaches or maybe experimenting with a variety of learning methods.

To state my own viewpoint at the beginning, I might personally lean
toward an approach based on a combination of 16th-century treatises
(Vicentino, Zarlino, Morley, Santa Maria) and modern texts, with an
emphasis on a "direct" rather than "species" method. Curiously, like
Tomas de Santa Maria, I would place a great deal of emphasis on
composing or improvising in rather simple four-voice textures, as well
as on more elaborate techniques (e.g. imitation and canon, double
counterpoint).

This isn't by any means to exclude awareness of the later "species"
method, a very interesting aspect of musical and pedagogical culture
in its own right, as one might say. However, the original 16th-century
methods and some 20th-century adaptations seem to me more "direct,"
just as the term implies, and encourage immersion both in actual
16th-century music and its theoretical explanation at the time.

One such modern textbook, which has inspired lots of offshoots (some
with the benefits of a half century of scholarship since) is Gustav
Fredric Soderlund's _Direct Approach to Counterpoint in 16th century
style_.[1]

In selecting some materials given special emphasis here, I've
doubtless been influenced by my own predilections, which often may be
rather different than those of a typical academic department -- and
may or may not be that different from those of others on this List.

For example, I highly recommend Vicentino's _Ancient Music Adapted to
Modern Practice_ (1555), conveniently available in a complete modern
English translation[2], both for its discussion of 16th-century common
practice _and_ its presentation of the chromatic and enharmonic
genera, questions of intonation and temperament, etc.

Zarlino's Third Book from his _Harmonic Institutions_ (1558),
available in English translation as _The Art of Counterpoint_[3],
provides a more conventional view with its own insights and judgments
of taste, including some remarks on intonation.

Both books present the state of the art around the middle of the 16th
century, the epoch of Palestrina's youth. Obviously an analysis of
Palestrina's style itself, or that of his contemporary Orlando di
Lasso who is often taken in academic counterpoint studies as a
somewhat more flexible model, must date from a somewhat later era.

Some valuable sources are included in a book by Knud Jeppesen which
may serve as a companion to his _Counterpoint_, or as a valuable
independent reference: _The Style of Palestrina and the
Dissonance_.[4]

Here we encounter some issues involving historical value judgments. At
the time Jeppesen was writing, both he and others regarded the music
of the later 16th century, and more especially Palestrina, as the
culmination of all earlier medieval and Renaissance European polyphony
going back to the 9th century. This viewpoint is amply reflected both
in his discussions of Gothic styles -- far less well known in theory
and practice then than they are now -- and also in his treatment of
composers around 1500 such Ockeghem, Obrecht, and Josquin.

Today, when Gothic approaches to stability/instability and also the
distinctive achievements of the Josquin generation are recognized as
just as "central" as the late 16th century, an approach to the
Renaissance/Manneristic era (say, for our present purposes, 1450-1640)
might draw on a much wider range of stylistic models and genres.

Also, while Gothic and Renaissance/Manneristic techniques have
contrasting intonational and other aesthetic aspects which makes their
separate study a not unnatural approach, they also share certain
themes such as "closest approach"[5] progressions which might well be
brought out even while focusing on manifestations within a given era.

Although following to a degree the usual academic tradition by giving
a main emphasis to the middle and later 16th century, I have felt free
to include the earlier part of the century also when it seems helpful
to develop certain themes such as note-against-writing for voices or
instruments which play a role throughout the era.

------------------------------------------
1. Fux, Jeppesen, and species counterpoint
------------------------------------------

As has been explained by earlier contributions to this thread, the
famous treatise _Gradus ad Parnassum_ by J.J. Fux (1725) is an
18th-century view of modal counterpoint based on Palestrina's style as
known at that time -- in contrast to a 16th-century or 20th-21st
century view.

This does not make Fux's text less valuable as a beautiful piece of
musical literature, and also as an expression of the modal system as
it continued to exert influence in an era where major/minor tonality
was becoming the dominant paradigm in theory as well as practice. From
this perspective, Fux's treatment of the modes in a quasi-16th-century
setting might be compared to that of Kirnberger in the more "modern"
setting of 18th-century liturgical music, for example that of
Kirnberger's teacher J. S. Bach.

In order to present the art of composition in Palestrina's manner
using a "step by step" approach, Fux adopts a "species" approach.
While one aspect of his teaching method has precedents in late Gothic
and Renaissance approaches, the elaborate system of species we are
about to consider seems to have its roots mainly in post-1600
presentations.

Following a long tradition, Fux has the student begin with two-voice
settings in note-against-note style, the literal meaning in fact of
the novel 14th-century term _contrapunctus_ or "point against point."
As Zarlino (1558) explains, this approach (if one follows 15th-16th
century conventions) restricts the new student to the use of
(Renaissance) consonances only, and is necessary in order to learn the
art of finding these basic consonances and moving from one to another
before getting enmeshed in the complications and greater liberties of
a more elaborate style.

For Fux, note-against-style is the "First Species." While 16th-century
teachers including Zarlino simply proceed from here to "diminished
counterpoint" where smaller note values, fluid rhythms, and
suspensions are presented more or less together, however, Fux takes
this process methodically, step-by-step, over four more distinct
"species."

Thus the "Second Species" involves two notes in the added melody
against one in the original melody or _cantus firmus_; here
dissonances may be placed in certain circumstances on unstressed
beats.

The "Third Species" similarly involves four notes against one, with
Fux's rules somewhat differing from those of Palestrina's practice, as
Jeppesen discusses.

The "Fourth Species" consists of suspensions placed as often as
possible between the two voices, and introduces the most idiomatic
form of cadential dissonance.

Finally, the "Fifth Species" or "florid" style combines all of the
other four.

This is the basic approach of Fux, first moving through the species of
two-voice counterpoint, then moving on to three or more voices.

Jeppesen, in his teaching approach, seeks a kind of synthesis between
Fux's pedagogy and a more systematic and "authentic" appreciation of
Palestrina's actual late 16th-century style: he follows Fux's species
method, but with the rules based on his very thorough research and
study of such matters as dissonance treatment.

-------------------------------------------------------
2. A "direct" (and somewhat keyboard-oriented) approach
-------------------------------------------------------

Turning from Fux or Jeppesen to 16th-century methods, we find a
"standard" approach starting with note-against-note writing for two
voices, then moving to "diminished" or florid counterpoint for two
voices, and from there to the question of managing three or more
voices.

Vicentino, Zarlino, and Thomas Morley (1597)[6] present a range of
variations on this basic theme, and it remains a very natural
progression favored by 20th-century advocates of a "direct" approach
also.[7]

However, one might supplement this outlook with another approach to
16th-century music taken by Tomas de Santa Maria in his _Book on the
Art of Playing Fantasia_[8], where "fantasia" might be translated
roughly as "composed or improvised music often featuring four-voice
sonorities moving mostly note-against-note."

Like other authors, Santa Maria introduces the rudiments of music such
as two-voice intervals and their classification under the stylistic
norms of the time as consonances or dissonances; he also presents a
very interesting discussion of the modes, and a survey of some common
cadential figures.

From here, however, he focuses especially on the art of managing basic
four-voice sonorities, regarding the bass and highest voice as
principal, with the middle voices adding "accompanying consonances"
and "filling out the space" between these outer parts.

As scholars have recently noted, his theory nicely fits the practice
of keyboard composers such as Antonio de Cabezon[9] -- and also, at
least in my opinion, of much vocal music in mostly note-against-note
style around 1500 or 1550.

Synthesizing standard 16th-century methods with those of Santa Maria,
we might approach the style by following two concurrent threads:
patterns and progressions in simple four-voice textures, and a
progression through the usual topics and techniques from two-voice
writing to three or more voices.

One advantage of rapid immersion in basic four-voice textures is that
it permits an appreciation of such themes as Zarlino's _harmonia
perfetta_ (full or complete sonority as defined in 16th-century
terms), typical progressions and patterns of modal cadences, and some
simple suspension idioms. This early exposure can lend zest to the
gradual process of exploring the rules and intricacies of more
elaborate writing.

Another advantage is that a feeling for basic four-voice textures can
nicely bring out some of the main intonational issues and preferences
of this era -- for example, qualities of meantone temperament for
keyboards (also experienced, of course, in textures with fewer
voices).

A special attraction of Santa Maria is that he presents a 16th-century
approach to the description of four-voice sonorities, making this a
fundamental theme of his approach -- although Zarlino has very
important discussions of multi-voice sonorities also, and the two both
contribute to a balanced picture. Personally I much favor approaching
these sonorities in "authentic" 16th-century terms, although here
tastes and learning styles may vary.

More specifically, my situation in approaching Gothic and Renaissance
music as my first style to learn may be quite different from that of
someone with a background in some non-European tradition, or in an
18th-19th century European tradition. Happily, there are a wide range
of approaches to choose from.

----------
3. Summary
----------

An assortment of 16th-century and later texts offer three different
types of approaches, which might be combined in various ways:

(1) A "classic" 16th-century progression from note-against-note
writing in two voices, to florid or "diminished" counterpoint in two
voices, to textures with larger numbers of voices (Vicentino, Zarlino,
Morley -- and also modern writers such as Soderlund). In 20th-century
versions of this approach, there tends to be a focus on late
16th-century vocal music, with Palestrina and Lasso often getting
major emphasis.

(2) A "four-voice" approach emphasizing note-against-note style (Santa
Maria), which could be developed in modern texts possibly defining a
new pedagogical category like "16th-century keyboard harmony" or the
like -- although many vocal as well instrumental pieces fit into the
general category of this style. This outlook may lend itself to a
broad sampling of composers ranging from the often dancelike songs of
Juan del Encina and his colleagues around 1500, to the note-against-
note keyboard music of Cabezon, to some sacred vocal music of
Palestrina and Lasso.

(3) A "species" approach of the kind made famous by Fux, and adapted
by Jeppesen to a more thorough 20th-century analysis of Palestrina's
style.

Typically one might combine (1) and (2), while even if (3) is not
chosen as a primary learning strategy, an explanation of the species
at some point can be very helpful background.

-----
Notes
-----

1. Gustave Fredric Soderlund, _Direct approach to counterpoint in 16th
century style_, Eastman School of Music Series (New York, Appleton-
Century-Crofts [1947]).

2. Nicola Vicentino, _Ancient Music Adapted to Modern Practice_,
tr. Maria Rika Maniates, ed. Claude V. Palisca (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1996), ISBN 0-300-06601-5.

3. Gioseffo Zarlino, _The Art of Counterpoint: Part Three
of Le Istitutioni harmoniche, 1558_, trans. Guy A. Marco and
Claude Palisca (W. W. Norton, 1976), ISBN 0-393-00833-9.

4. Knud Jeppesen, _The Style of Palestrina and the Dissonance_ (New
York: Dover, 1976).

5. "Closest approach" progressions involving stepwise contrary motion
by a whole-tone in one voice and a semitone in the other (e.g. m3-1,
M3-5, M6-8) are an important element of practice and theory from
around 1300 to a bit after 1600, as elements of a changing musical
landscape.

6. Thomas Morley, _A Plain & Easy Introduction to Practical Music_,
Alec Harman, ed., 2nd ed. (W. W. Norton, 1973). Morley's presentation
is entertaining to read as a witty Elizabethan dialogue as well as an
introduction to two-voice counterpoint or "descant" and multi-voice
composition or "setting."

7. See, for example, Soderlund, n. 1 above, and various more recent
textbooks.

8. Tomas de Santa Maria (or Thomas de Sancta Maria), _Libro llamado
Arte de tan~er Fantasia, assi para Tecla como para Vihuela, y todo
instrumento, en que se pudiere tan~er a tres, y a quatro vozes, y a
mas_ ("The Book called the Art of playing Fantasia, for Keyboard as
for Vihuela, and every instrument on which it is possible to play in
three, four, or more voices"), facsimile edition (Gregg International
Publishers Limited, 1972) of 1565 edition (Francisco Fernandez de
Cordova). A modern English edition is also available: Almonte
C. Howell, Jr. and Warren E. Hultberg, eds., _The art of playing the
fantasia by Fray Thomas de Sancta Maria (Latin American Literary
Review Press, 1991). For a discussion of Santa Maria's technique of
four-voice composition or improvisation using mostly progressions in
note-against-note motion, see Miguel A. Roig-Francoli, "Playing in
consonances: A Spanish Renaissance technique of chordal
improvisation," _Early Music_ (August 1995), pp. 461-471.

9. See Roig-Francoli, ibid.

Most respectfully,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

--- In tuning@y..., "M. Schulter" <MSCHULTER@V...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20336.html#20336

SUMMARY:
>
> An assortment of 16th-century and later texts offer three different
> types of approaches, which might be combined in various ways:
>
> (1) A "classic" 16th-century progression from note-against-note
> writing in two voices, to florid or "diminished" counterpoint in two
> voices, to textures with larger numbers of voices (Vicentino,
Zarlino, Morley -- and also modern writers such as Soderlund). In
20th-century versions of this approach, there tends to be a focus on
late 16th-century vocal music, with Palestrina and Lasso often getting
> major emphasis.
>
> (2) A "four-voice" approach emphasizing note-against-note style
(Santa Maria), which could be developed in modern texts possibly
defining a new pedagogical category like "16th-century keyboard
harmony" or the like -- although many vocal as well instrumental
pieces fit into the general category of this style. This outlook may
lend itself to a broad sampling of composers ranging from the often
dancelike songs of Juan del Encina and his colleagues around 1500, to
the note-against-
> note keyboard music of Cabezon, to some sacred vocal music of
> Palestrina and Lasso.
>
> (3) A "species" approach of the kind made famous by Fux, and adapted
> by Jeppesen to a more thorough 20th-century analysis of Palestrina's
> style.
>
> Typically one might combine (1) and (2), while even if (3) is not
> chosen as a primary learning strategy, an explanation of the species
> at some point can be very helpful background.
>

I would like to thank Margo Schulter for her excellent summary of
various approaches to learning counterpoint. For me, anyway, it
seems that counterpoint is a really crucial study to those interested
in xenharmonic music, particularly since the "old" or "former" rules
of traditional harmonic usage are no longer as applicable.
Counterpoint is, at least, something we can "depend" on... and it
crosses time and cultures.

In fact, one can even view TEXTURAL development as a counterpoint of
sorts and, in fact, I personally would advocate such as a way of
expanding the term for musical procedures evident in our own time.
Taken in this way, even composers like David Beardsley, who use
"static" textures, could be seen to be using a counterpoint of sorts
when the textures change. I suppose such a study, when resulting in
simultenaity could also be called "modern harmony," but I would
prefer the more inclusive, LINEAR and FREER classifications of
counterpoint.

It seems a bit ironic that in our day and age we know so much MORE
about Renaissance composers than they did in the 18th century. It
seems that as time progresses the human ability to investigate and
research (dare I say, "snoop") becomes more and more refined. Without
getting too OT, I would say that these "techniques" are currently
being shown in our investigations of the private lives of our public
officials and other "celebrities..." These "data gathering"
tendencies should not, necessarily, be viewed as something "evil."
Rather, society is going to have to learn how to deal with the more
intensive scrutiny in a mature way. The Internet and the omnipresent
ability for ANYONE to investigate just about ANYTHING about every
living human being is one ramification of this trend. I do not in
any way find this disturbing... (but, I don't even find "genetic
research" disurbing!) But these ARE social trends to which we will
have to adjust.

Getting quickly back to music :), I would say that I would celebrate
the investigative techniques since they obviously magnified the
importance of "freer" composers of the Renaissance, such as Orlando
di Lasso and, probably, Gesualdo... some of my personal favorites,
although I must say that there are those times that the stately grace
of Palestrina and Victoria serve as a powerful solace (probably they
did in their OWN age too!)

In any case, I guess it would make sense that the composers to FIRST
be investigated in a systematic way would BE the most systematic
composers... such as Palestrina. I'm glad, however, that the more
thorough research is bringing the "looser, creative" types into
greater prominance... at least as evidenced by Margo Schulter's
interesting comments.

Correspondingly, it would seem that the emphasis on contrapuntal
techniques is also changing, to the more "direct" methods we have
seen in the short monograph by Ernst Krenek, of which we were so
helpfully reminded by Kraig Grady.

It does seem that an elaborate "species" method of counterpoint
instruction is somewhat outdated... Personally, though, I find the
Fux book a "hoot" since it is so well written and practically
"comical" in certain sections -- in the clever interactions between
teacher and pupil. It is also enjoyable to see the examples
progressing through such a thorough and systematic method.

Upon further appraisal of the Walter Piston book, which I also own, I
should say that, in reality, it is quite good, and stresses 17th and
18th century counterpoint, rather than 16th. Bach is given special
prominence. The section on "invertible" or "double" counterpoint is
also quite fine. For those wondering what this is, "invertible"
counterpoint is simply the process of moving voices around in
different registers and making everything "work out." Naturally,
such "inversions" occur principally, in "traditional" music at
"harmonic" intervals... the octave, 12th and 15th... The term
"double" counterpoint is used when TWO voices transpose around, not
just one. There is even TRIPLE counterpoint where elements A,B,C are
combined in every possible way in a three-voiced texture. Bach uses
many ofthese techniques in the Well Tempered Clavier...

The discussion on this list has encouraged me to do a little
"shopping" on Amazon.com, and I look forward to receiving a copy of
Jeppesen (which I have heard of, but never had in my library) and
Salzer/Schacter. The Salzer/Schacter approach SEEMS more attuned to
the Piston approach of viewing counterpoint "in action" as it were
in pieces through many eras. I'm anxious to read it, though, since
it seems to emphasize more a "Schenkerian" approached, whereas Piston
is decidedly OPPOSED to Schenker. Piston feels that the beauty is in
the DETAILS of counterpoint, and Schenkerian reductions, reducing
great music to skeletons, are pointless...

appreciatively...
_______________ ______ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> It seems a bit ironic that in our day and age we know so much MORE
> about Renaissance composers than they did in the 18th century. It
> seems that as time progresses the human ability to investigate and
> research (dare I say, "snoop") becomes more and more refined.

Also that history is a cumulative study, and there are more people
around now to swell the academic minority who practice it.

> Correspondingly, it would seem that the emphasis on contrapuntal
> techniques is also changing, to the more "direct" methods we have
> seen in the short monograph by Ernst Krenek, of which we were so
> helpfully reminded by Kraig Grady.

Can you give an outline of how these approaches differ, or will I find
out in good time? I should be getting both Vicentino and Krenek
around the middle of next week.

> It does seem that an elaborate "species" method of counterpoint
> instruction is somewhat outdated... Personally, though, I find the
> Fux book a "hoot" since it is so well written and practically
> "comical" in certain sections -- in the clever interactions between
> teacher and pupil. It is also enjoyable to see the examples
> progressing through such a thorough and systematic method.

It's strange how a method of analysis can be seen as antiquated, when
the music it analyses hasn't changed.

> Upon further appraisal of the Walter Piston book, which I also own,
I
> should say that, in reality, it is quite good, and stresses 17th and
> 18th century counterpoint, rather than 16th. Bach is given special
> prominence.

Sounds interesting, then. I expect the library'll have it, but I'll
try to "do" the 16th Century first.

> The section on "invertible" or "double" counterpoint is
> also quite fine. For those wondering what this is, "invertible"
> counterpoint is simply the process of moving voices around in
> different registers and making everything "work out."

You say "simply" but I still think I'll need a book to get the hang
of it.

> The discussion on this list has encouraged me to do a little
> "shopping" on Amazon.com, and I look forward to receiving a copy of
> Jeppesen (which I have heard of, but never had in my library) and
> Salzer/Schacter.

Would it make sense to follow a library copy of Fux, but get Jeppesen
for permanent reference?

> The Salzer/Schacter approach SEEMS more attuned to
> the Piston approach of viewing counterpoint "in action" as it were
> in pieces through many eras. I'm anxious to read it, though, since
> it seems to emphasize more a "Schenkerian" approached, whereas
Piston
> is decidedly OPPOSED to Schenker. Piston feels that the beauty is
in
> the DETAILS of counterpoint, and Schenkerian reductions, reducing
> great music to skeletons, are pointless...

Schenkerian analysis of counterpoint sounds interesting. Let us know
how you get on with it, it could be worth looking up one day.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., "Graham Breed" <graham@m...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20336.html#20539

>
> > Correspondingly, it would seem that the emphasis on contrapuntal
> > techniques is also changing, to the more "direct" methods we have
> > seen in the short monograph by Ernst Krenek, of which we were so
> > helpfully reminded by Kraig Grady.
>
> Can you give an outline of how these approaches differ, or will I
find out in good time? I should be getting both Vicentino and Krenek
> around the middle of next week.

The Krenek is a short work, but emphasizes the various "step
procedures" in writing a "Renaissance" melody depending on the note
values... In other words, he will say, use skips first and then steps
in ascending melodies in half notes, etc. I don't have my copy right
here, so I can't be more specific, but it's that kind of thing... a
general approach to writing melodies in that style with different
note values. Hence, it would pertain as well to Lasso and some of
the "freer" contrapuntalists as much as to Palestrina...

>
> > It does seem that an elaborate "species" method of counterpoint
> > instruction is somewhat outdated... Personally, though, I find
the Fux book a "hoot" since it is so well written and practically
> > "comical" in certain sections -- in the clever interactions
between teacher and pupil. It is also enjoyable to see the examples
> > progressing through such a thorough and systematic method.
>
> It's strange how a method of analysis can be seen as antiquated,
when the music it analyses hasn't changed.
>

Ummm. Not really. Look at "Roman Numeral Analysis" of Baroque music.
Constructing everything and analyzing from a "figured bass" was all
the rage, previously in the 19th century. TODAY, it's considered
a little "outmoded" and more "linear" methods and "reductive"
methods, as well as overall modulatory analysis of SHAPE are more
featured...

Music theory tastes "come and go" but the music remains!

> > Upon further appraisal of the Walter Piston book, which I also
own, I should say that, in reality, it is quite good, and stresses
17th and 18th century counterpoint, rather than 16th. Bach is given
special prominence.
>
> Sounds interesting, then. I expect the library'll have it, but I'll
> try to "do" the 16th Century first.

Right. I wouldn't BUY it, if I didn't HAVE it. I think there are
more "exciting" ones...

>
> > The section on "invertible" or "double" counterpoint is
> > also quite fine. For those wondering what this is, "invertible"
> > counterpoint is simply the process of moving voices around in
> > different registers and making everything "work out."
>
> You say "simply" but I still think I'll need a book to get the hang
> of it.
>

You won't find it too difficult once you see it in "action..."

> > The discussion on this list has encouraged me to do a little
> > "shopping" on Amazon.com, and I look forward to receiving a copy
of Jeppesen (which I have heard of, but never had in my library) and
> > Salzer/Schacter.
>
> Would it make sense to follow a library copy of Fux, but get
Jeppesen for permanent reference?
>

Well... Fux is a fun read, and at about $11 a pretty good buy. Both
are inexpensive paperbacks...

> > The Salzer/Schacter approach SEEMS more attuned to
> > the Piston approach of viewing counterpoint "in action" as it were
> > in pieces through many eras. I'm anxious to read it, though,
since it seems to emphasize more a "Schenkerian" approached, whereas
> Piston is decidedly OPPOSED to Schenker. Piston feels that the
beauty is in the DETAILS of counterpoint, and Schenkerian reductions,
reducing great music to skeletons, are pointless...
>
> Schenkerian analysis of counterpoint sounds interesting. Let us
know how you get on with it, it could be worth looking up one day.
>

I've HEARD about the Salzer/Schacter for years and since it's also a
paperback, I decided to "spring" for it...

best,

JP
_________ ______ _____ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20336.html#20536

> In any case, I guess it would make sense that the composers to
> FIRST be investigated in a systematic way would BE the most
> systematic composers... such as Palestrina. I'm glad, however,
> that the more thorough research is bringing the "looser,
> creative" types into greater prominance... at least as evidenced
> by Margo Schulter's interesting comments.

Joe, also don't forget that counterpoint already had a 700 year
written history by the time Palestrina came along.

The first examples that can definitely be proven to be
"counterpoint", or even "harmony" for that matter, were in
the _musica enchiriadis_ and _scholia enchiriadis_ treatises,
which were written around 800 AD.

In my opinion, some of the most interesting counterpoint
comes from the "manneristic" period around 1300, complete
with polymeters.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"