Re: European counterpoint -- for Haresh

Hello, there, Haresh, and everyone.

Dear Haresh, you have raised a very important question about European
music from the invaluable perspective of one most learned and skilled
in a different and very sophisticated musical tradition: the nature of
Western European counterpoint through the centuries.

First, as Jacky Ligon has done, please let me express my deep respect
for your musically and culturally insightful contributions on the
music of India and its spiritual meaning, including such aspects as
ragas and srutis. It is the highest honor to attempt, however
imperfectly, to respond to your question embracing aspects of at least
seven centuries of European music.

Also, as in an earlier post, please let me add with due humility that
people who have actually taught counterpoint, or used textbooks
published in the the last decade or two with which I am less familiar,
may have all kinds of valuable suggestions. Anything I say here should
be read with caution, and not as a substitute for such informed
opinions.

First, if asked to define counterpoint, I would say that counterpoint
is the art of combining two or more melodic lines so as to form a
beautiful texture where these lines combine in apt vertical intervals
or sonorities and progressions.

This definition might also apply to the earlier medieval concept of
discant, which Jacobus of Liege (c. 1325) describes as the art of
combining two or more songs so as to produce good concord.

Since the term "counterpoint" (Latin _contrapunctus_) was apparently
first used around the year 1300, we might say that, strictly speaking,
its practice and theory begin in the early 14th century, the epoch
known as the opening of the _Ars Nova_ or "New Art" (around
1300-1420). Since then, counterpoint has taken form in many styles
ranging from the late Gothic or Ars Nova to the styles of the 16th and
18th centuries often given special academic emphasis to new forms of
"20th-century counterpoint."

However, the earlier medieval categories of organum and discant
involve many of the same musical aspects and issues: how to combine
different melodic lines so as to produce a texture which is beautiful
both in terms of vertical intervals or sonorities sounding at the same
time, and in terms of melodic lines and their interplay.

By the time the term "counterpoint" was introduced around the
beginning of the 14th century, European polyphony (two or more voices
sounding at the same time) had already been practiced for at least
about 400-450 years, with treatises on this topic dating back to
the era of around 850-900 (e.g. _Musica enchiriadis_).

If we use the terms "discant" and "counterpoint" to refer to music
where a large variety of vertical intervals are used, and there is a
specific interest in maintaining some independence of the voices
(especially through frequent use of contrary motion, with one voice
ascending and the other descending at the same time), then we may be
dealing with about nine centuries of music, say from around the end of
the 11th century to the present.

If we focus on forms of discant and counterpoint where writing for at
least three simultaneous voices is common (although two-voice writing
continues), then we are dealing with about 800 years of practice and
theory, from the era of the great composer Perotin and his colleagues
around 1200 to the present.

One problem in discussing European discant and counterpoint is the
variety of eras and styles. Since this is the Tuning List, I'll
comment about the tuning systems often associated with different eras
or styles:

(1) Gothic discant and counterpoint (c. 1200-1420). In this
music, the basic vertical consonance is the _trine_ with
a ratio of 2:3:4 (e.g. D3-A3-D4 -- with C4 as middle C,
and higher numbers showing higher octaves). Pythagorean
intonation using a wide range of simple and complex
ratios of 3 is the basis for a very sophisticated range
of musics often recognizing subtle degrees of concord
or discord. Octaves, fifths, and fourths are the stable
concords, but a range of other intervals and sonorities
are regarded as having some degree of "concord."

(2) Renaissance/Manneristic counterpoint (c. 1420-1650). In
this era thirds and sixths become the primary concords,
with the ratio 4:5:6 (e.g. F3-A3-C4) becoming the new
_harmonia perfetta_ or "perfect harmony," referred to
in 1610 and 1612 by Johannes Lippius as a "triad."
Just intonation based on pure ratios of 3 and 5, or
meantone temperament with slightly narrow fifths and
pure or near-pure thirds, is the ideal. During most
of this era, all seconds and sevenths are treated
rather cautiously as "discords," but around 1600
they are often used more boldly -- a usual practice
during the Gothic or Classic/Romantic eras.

(3) Early major/minor counterpoint (c. 1650-1750). During
the earlier part of this era, or at least by around
the time of Corelli (c. 1680), the modal systems of
Gothic and Renaissance/Manneristic eras yield more
and more to the emerging system of major/minor keys.
While bold dissonances are used as rhetorical or
poetic effects in early 17th-century modal
counterpoint, they now serve as structural elements
defining a key. Bach's counterpoint, likely based
on systems of 12-note well-temperament where fifths
and thirds are tuned in a range of sizes to make
all keys playable on a 12-note instrument, typifies
this era at its best.

(4) Classic/Romantic counterpoint (c. 1750-1900). In
this era, with major/minor tonality as the norm,
composers such as Haydn continue from time to
time to use subtle counterpoint techniques,
although other musical approaches and aspects
are often stressed; around 1850, the theoretical
norm for tunings shifts from well-temperaments
toward 12-tone equal temperament (12-tET).

(5) 20th-century counterpoint (c. 1900-2000). A
bit before the year 1900, composers such as
Debussy introduce new styles of counterpoint
and harmony, sometimes inspired by medieval
European practices or by other world musics.
As in Gothic music, for example, fifths and
fourths are often favored; at the same time,
there is often no clear standard of "stability"
or distinction between "concord/discord" of
the kind assumed in historical European
polyphony. While 12-tET remains the "standard"
keyboard tuning, composers such as Harry Partch,
and Ivor Darreg explore contrapuntal styles
associated with extended just intonation or with
a wide range of equal temperaments (e.g. 13-tET,
16-tET).

How one approaches the concept of "discant" or "counterpoint" may
depend on one's musical background and experience. As someone with a
background mainly in 13th-16th century European styles, I tend to take
a balance between the vertical and horizontal dimensions for granted;
people trained mainly in 18th-19th century styles, where patterns of
key-based harmony may take priority, may view things differently.

Interestingly, during the era of around 1300-1600, the term
"counterpoint" could sometimes mean specifically a style of setting
two parts in "note-against-note," moving in the same time values; this
is a literal meaning of _contrapunctus_ or "point against point."

However, the term has often come to have almost exactly the opposite
meaning: a "contrapuntal" style is one with melodic lines woven
together and yet each standing out, typically moving in different
rhythmic values or patterns, for example.

Styles of European discant and counterpoint can vary radically in the
degree to which the succession of vertical intervals or sonorities is
bound by certain more or less strict "rules" (as in 16th-century or
18th-century counterpoint), or is bound by few such categorical rules,
although following certain more or less probable patterns (as in
13th-century discant or 20th-century counterpoint).

Discant or counterpoint in almost any era is _both_ vertical and
linear: the behavior of melodic lines is guided by certain
progressions between vertical intervals or sonorities, while
progressions between vertical sonorities should involve interesting
melodic lines.

When people refer to counterpoint as "linear," they may, for example,
be referring to the absence in Gothic and Renaissance/Manneristic
styles or many 20th-century styles of the restrictions imposed by
major/minor key harmony. However, many of these styles involve other
patterns for establishing a vertical "center" or arranging sectional
cadences in modal or similar schemes, or using tone-rows or serial
techniques, etc., to achieve other kinds of organization.

In any given era, various stylistic norms combine to shape the
patterns of melodic lines and sonorities, although to one immersed in
a style, these norms may seem quite "natural" and may often go
unspoken. For example, in 13th-century discant, the voices while often
following different rhythmic patterns (e.g. a slow lowest part, faster
middle part, and highly ornamented upper part) typically converge
frequently on complete 2:3:4 trines. Similarly, in the 16th century,
interweaving voices often converge on 4:5:6 sonorities. Theorists of
both eras discuss complete or "perfect" sonority as one ideal, and at
the same time emphasize the diversity of the voices making up the
texture.

While the concept of "discant" or "counterpoint" typically implies an
interest in independence of the voices, this ideal can lead in
different eras to different practices and rules. Thus parallel fifths
and octaves are common in 13th-14th century and 20th-century writing,
but mostly avoided during the centuries between, although with some
interesting exceptions.

For whatever reasons, 16th-century and 18th-century counterpoint, with
Palestrina, Lasso, and Victoria as common models for the first period
and Bach for the second, are the most usual topics for academic
study.

Gothic discant and counterpoint, my own special interest, have tended
to get less attention, although like 20th-century counterpoint they
often involve an approach recognizing several degrees of
"concord/discord" and imposing few absolute rules. Composers such as
Perotin, Adam de la Halle, Petrus de Cruce, Philippe de Vitry,
Guillaume de Machaut, Francesco Landini, and Johannes Ciconia
masterfully explore some of the possibilities of these styles.

Also, while "Renaissance counterpoint" tends to focus on the 16th
century, and specifically its later part, the 15th-century
counterpoint of composers such as Dufay (a kind of transitional figure
between Gothic and Renaissance) and Ockeghem deserves much more
emphasis.

The late modal counterpoint of the era around 1600, the age of
Monteverdi and Frescobaldi, deserves more attention also: various
kinds of dissonances are freely used without the later constraints of
major/minor tonality.

In each era, some styles are more "contrapuntal" than others in the
sense of rhythmically distinguished voices. Thus in the music of Adam
de la Halle around 1280, we find three-voice French songs with simple
vertical progressions suggesting for some scholars a style of
accompanied song, as well as more intricate textures. This contrast
also holds around 1400 or 1550, as well as in the simpler four-voice
chorales and more complex fugues of Bach around 1725. However, even
note-against-note textures may show much "contrapuntal" artistry in
the way that each melodic line is shaped.

Haresh, one possible disadvantage of sharing all this history is that
the choice of eras and styles may complicate the decision of where to
begin in studying such a diverse topic.

One approach would be to start with one of the more familiar periods,
and as people have discussed, either the 16th century or the 18th
century has produced much literature both from these periods and by
more modern authors.

If I may say so, Graham Breed has in a recent post suggested one
method I consider very important: reading a 16th-century theorist such
as Nicola Vicentino, whose treatise _Ancient Music Adapted to Modern
Practice_ addresses not only some basic rules of counterpoint,
intervals, and sonority, but also chromatic and enharmonic techniques
and topics related to intonation of great interest to this List.

This isn't to say that I'd recommend Vicentino as the _only_ book for
someone seeking to learn 16th-century counterpoint, but this book plus
a modern textbook or two might be a nice place to begin -- together
with lots of exposure to actual 16th-century music, of course.

With Joe Monzo I much agree that Fux's 18th-century _Gradus ad
Parnassum_ is a beautiful piece of literature in its own right as well
as a step-by-step approach to a style inspired by that of Palestrina
in the later 16th century. Certainly it is one possible place to
begin also.

Again, I realize that much of what I say may raise more questions, and
warmly invite such questions, which may best promote learning.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

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

/tuning/topicId_20547.html#20547

>
> When people refer to counterpoint as "linear," they may, for
example, be referring to the absence in Gothic and
Renaissance/Manneristic
> styles or many 20th-century styles of the restrictions imposed by
> major/minor key harmony. However, many of these styles involve other
> patterns for establishing a vertical "center" or arranging sectional
> cadences in modal or similar schemes, or using tone-rows or serial
> techniques, etc., to achieve other kinds of organization.
>
> In any given era, various stylistic norms combine to shape the
> patterns of melodic lines and sonorities, although to one immersed
in a style, these norms may seem quite "natural" and may often go
> unspoken.

I would like to thank Margo Schulter for continuing our interesting
discussion of counterpoint and how it relates to xenharmonicism and
thinking about tunings...

I believe this is true that the thought of counterpoint as having a
"linear" emphasis in the 20th century, and probably in earlier musics
has to do with a sense of "freedom" of not having to slavishly follow
major/minor key harmony schemes. Of course, that doesn't mean that
the composition has no vertical organization! As Ms. Schulter
mentions, there are many organizational means associated with such
counterpoint, and the vertical instances DO matter.

Regarding more "experimental" forms, like "free" jazz, which also
could quite possibly be considered "contrapuntal," perhaps in some
instances harmonies are INCIDENTAL to the overall "linear" or
"horizontal" thrust. I have the feeling that in a jazz master such
as Ornette Coleman, some of the harmony is a bit accidental, although
he has an elaborate system for classifying it. That is not,
necessarily, as disparagement. Perhaps some kinds of music just
emphasize "linearity" or horizontal composition over the vertical.

It might also be said that, in some such kinds of music,
serendipitous VERTICAL occurrences could be great discoveries,
although some of them might be produced by "chance." Perhaps it
could be a bit like an experiment in a laboratory, where a scientist
sets out to prove some theorm and then, accidently, discovers
something even more wonderous.

So my point is that, basically, such fortuitous harmonic discoveries
throught "linear" counterpoint perhaps should not be discounted as
"haphazard" in all instances, particularly in the "hands" of a
talented composer or performer. Sometimes things of great value can
be produced. Of course, in more "formalized" composition, generally
there are describable organizational procedures for vertical
occurrences, as mentioned by Ms. Schulter.

________ ______ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

"M. Schulter" wrote:

>
> Gothic discant and counterpoint, my own special interest, have tended
> to get less attention, although like 20th-century counterpoint they
> often involve an approach recognizing several degrees of
> "concord/discord" and imposing few absolute rules. Composers such as
> Perotin, Adam de la Halle, Petrus de Cruce, Philippe de Vitry,
> Guillaume de Machaut, Francesco Landini, and Johannes Ciconia
> masterfully explore some of the possibilities of these styles.
>
> Also, while "Renaissance counterpoint" tends to focus on the 16th
> century, and specifically its later part, the 15th-century
> counterpoint of composers such as Dufay (a kind of transitional figure
> between Gothic and Renaissance) and Ockeghem deserves much more
> emphasis.
>

I'd like to thank Margo for taking the time to put together yet another informative, thorough and
methodical posting. I think the original post of this thread was a request by someone for info on
sources to help with polyphonic and contrapuntal composition. So here's my little
unisonvectorsworth.
I would thoroughly recommend a book and workbook set called 'Music and the Middle Ages - Style and
Structure' by Fenwick-Wilson. I don't have his first name ( could be Roger ) because I don't have
the book - instead I spent a few months copying it out. It is out of print but can be had from
Amazon because after a few weeks search they found a copy for me which I declined.

Anyway, it is a challenging read but is extremely thorough covering styles and structure of all
forms of chant, the Divine Offices, Modal Theory, Early Polyphony (Organum), The Sacred Music of
Southern France, Composition in the Florid Style, Sacred Music in Paris, several separate chapters
on the various strands of Motet and chapters on the Polyphonic Song of France and Italy. The
workbook has copious examples, edited to the highest standards, but best of all there are detailed
assignments on virtually all the aforementioned styles. I found these to be of great value and
totally relevant to contemporary microtonal composition, particularly in my primary field of
choral writing, both mono- and polyphonic.

Arvo Part, who describes his music as abstract tonalism, took several years out to study the works
and techniques of Machaut, Josquin, Obrecht and Ockeghem, the last three admittedly later than the
period I'm discussing. His music relies largely on techniques such as structured chant, isorhythm
( still a lot to be gleaned here) and organum developments with highly regulated voice exchange.
He might have read this one book, listened to a lot of the music of the period (plenty around) and
considered himself well enough informed to make a start at original composition. This is to my way
of thinking thoroughly contemporary. A lot, perhaps too much, has been said in the musical
language of the common practice tonal period and not enough has been said in the language of
Machaut and company. And I haven't even started on cadential techniques.

Which brings me to agree that the counterpoint of Dufay and Ockeghem deserves much more emphasis.
With these, and Josquin and Obrecht, we have reached a pinnacle of excellence that new
JI/microtonal composers could look to for inspiration. For example many of the scales that crop up
in discussions are unsuitable for modulation to several key centres. So why not look to music that
doesn't modulate much if at all for ideas? And if you must have polyphony, and counterpoint within
that polyphony, I would suggest a few weeks working with parallel, composite parallel, oblique and
free organum liberally spiced with displacement techniques. ( I'm not being obscure, just trying
to arouse curiosity). As long as your lattice gives you some consonant structures good music can
be carved out.

There's always something new around the corner.

Alison!
I can't help but mention one of my favorites Adrian Willaert.
I have been looking/listening to Landini mainly because I stumbled across an old complete works
book from the 30's and found a recording . I once heard Doug Leedy sing one of these using the
8-9-10-11-12 and it sounded right whereas in ET it sounds almost Chaotic. hmmm.

When one gets to a cliff and one cannot take a step forward, progress is to take a step
backwards. I believe you are correct to point out the usefulness of this period of music as a great
place to take a step back to. Margo in turn has shown the usefulness of looking even further back.

It is true that many of the scales mentioned might not be modulated but thought i would point out
how the following paper shows how some of the more unusual scales can be "modulated" by changing only
one tone at a time. http://www.anaphoria.com/xen10pur.PDF
Not that this distracts from your important point at all.

Alison Monteith wrote:

>
> There's always something new around the corner.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Kraig Grady wrote:

>
> It is true that many of the scales mentioned might not be
> modulated but thought i would point out how the following paper shows
> how some of the more unusual scales can be "modulated" by changing
> only one tone at a time. http://www.anaphoria.com/xen10pur.PDF
> Not that this distracts from your important point at all.

Yes, processes such as these are of the utmost importance, despite the
effort that a conventionally trained or educated musician has to put in
to grasp the concepts.