a counterpoint of counterpoints

Well, FINALLY, my counterpoint books arrived (no long UPS story
included here, fortunately!) and so far things are quite interesting,
just in skimming them.

What does this have to do about tuning?? Well, for one thing,
several of the theorists we have been discussing on this list are
appearing in Knud Jeppesen's _Counterpoint_. The names include,
Zarlino, Vicentino and, later of course, Kirnberger. I didn't
realize that Kirnberger was a rather "slavish" follower of Johann
Sebastian Bach...

So, ALL of these theorists discussed counterpoint in addition to
tuning. My guess is that this was not so unusual for the time. Why
wouldn't a theoretical thinker about music consider both the
underlying pitch structure as well as ways of making a
musical continuity?

Is it perhaps only in our OWN age where our tuning system is SO
INGRAINED that theoriticians (and composers in some cases) like Forte
and Babbitt so ASSUME the system that they have no interest in
tuning?? (John Clough being a laudable exception to the "no tuning"
theorist rule...)

Immediately looking at it, it is clear that the Jeppesen counterpoint
book is MUCH closer to the Palestrina style than Fux... There are
full extracts of passages from Palestrina in it, and even the
"species" studies look more like Palestrina than the abstract Fux.
The book is interesting just from THAT standpoint alone...
particularly evident is the rhythmic variety in the counterpoint,
which is "downplayed" by Fux in the interest of facile tutelage.

So what is the drawback to Jeppesen? Well, the other book that came
from Amazon.com was the Salzer and Schachter __Counterpoint in
Composition__ which I had heard about for a long time, but had never
seen. This work proceeds with analysis of counterpoint from a
Heinrich Schenkerian point of view.

According to Salzer and Schachter, Jeppesen's narrow insistence on
the study of counterpoint from one particular style, the style of
Palestrina, is flawed. They feel that the Johann Joseph Fux work is
superior in this regard in that it is more ABSTRACT and is more
generally applicable. This, of course, would certainly fit in with
the Schenkerian approach which is, also, an abstract reduction of
musical passages.

ON THE OTHER HAND, composer Walter Piston in his own __Counterpoint__
feels that the SCHENKERIAN approach to the subject, proposed by
Salzer and Schachter is wrong. He feels that counterpoint is such a
"surface" study, and the linear DETAILS are so important that
subjecting them to Schenkerian reduction is uninforming...

So far, Salzer and Schachter have to convince me, also, of the
Schenkerian approach. The book is mighty "purdy" though... it's
"aspect ratio" is unusually wide (horizontal) and short (vertically)
just like counterpoint should be!

So, Salzer and Schachter dump Jeppesen and Piston, in turn, dumps
Salzer and Schachter. What a poignant party of counterpoints!

________ ______ _____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph wrote,

>So far, Salzer and Schachter have to convince me, also, of the
>Schenkerian approach.

Hi Joseph.

A few months ago we were discussing Schenker.

It came up that Salzer and Schachter grossly distort the "Schenkerian
approach" relative to what Schenker himself said and did.

Do you remember that?

-Paul

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_21044.html#21107

> Joseph wrote,
>
> >So far, Salzer and Schachter have to convince me, also, of the
> >Schenkerian approach.
>
> Hi Joseph.
>
> A few months ago we were discussing Schenker.
>
> It came up that Salzer and Schachter grossly distort the
"Schenkerian
> approach" relative to what Schenker himself said and did.
>
> Do you remember that?
>
> -Paul

I remember the discussion of Schenker vis a vis "Early Music"... but
not as contrasted with Salzer/Schachter...

The only thing I can find in the archive is

/tuning/topicId_18615.html#18615

by Christopher Bailey...

If it were a longer discussion, I believe I would have remembered
it... unless I'm missing something... quite possibly...

_________ ______ _____ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> I remember the discussion of Schenker vis a vis "Early Music"... but
> not as contrasted with Salzer/Schachter...

Actually, the "Early Music" article that was referenced (link was
provided) went into quite a lot of detail explaining how Salzer
distorted and misapplied Schenker . . . do you remember this article?
It was an excellent one . . .

--- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_21044.html#21252

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> >
> > I remember the discussion of Schenker vis a vis "Early Music"...
but not as contrasted with Salzer/Schachter...
>
> Actually, the "Early Music" article that was referenced (link was
> provided) went into quite a lot of detail explaining how Salzer
> distorted and misapplied Schenker . . . do you remember this
article? It was an excellent one . . .

I lost this link, and couldn't find it in my visit to the archive...

Anybody still have it??

_________ ______ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_21044.html#21252
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > >
> > > I remember the discussion of Schenker vis a vis "Early
Music"...
> but not as contrasted with Salzer/Schachter...
> >
> > Actually, the "Early Music" article that was referenced (link was
> > provided) went into quite a lot of detail explaining how Salzer
> > distorted and misapplied Schenker . . . do you remember this
> article? It was an excellent one . . .
>
> I lost this link, and couldn't find it in my visit to the archive...
>
> Anybody still have it??
>
A search in the archive worked for me -- it turns out the author of
the post was you!

/tuning/topicId_16073.html#16267

--- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_21044.html#21451

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_21044.html#21252
> >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I remember the discussion of Schenker vis a vis "Early
> Music"...
> > but not as contrasted with Salzer/Schachter...
> > >
> > > Actually, the "Early Music" article that was referenced (link
was
> > > provided) went into quite a lot of detail explaining how Salzer
> > > distorted and misapplied Schenker . . . do you remember this
> > article? It was an excellent one . . .
> >
> > I lost this link, and couldn't find it in my visit to the
archive...
> >
> > Anybody still have it??
> >
> A search in the archive worked for me -- it turns out the author of
> the post was you!
>
> /tuning/topicId_16073.html#16267

Paul! I didn't mean THAT link... I saw that one... I meant the link
to the WEBPAGE that had somebody's attempted Schenkerian reduction of
some Medieval piece that was totally "out to lunch..."
______ ______ ____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

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

> > /tuning/topicId_16073.html#16267
>
> Paul! I didn't mean THAT link... I saw that one... I meant the
link
> to the WEBPAGE that had somebody's attempted Schenkerian reduction
of
> some Medieval piece that was totally "out to lunch..."

If you had simply followed the link in that message, you'd find the
link to the article:

http://web.presby.edu/~danderso/diss/

hope it still works!

--- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_21044.html#21487

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > > /tuning/topicId_16073.html#16267
> >
> > Paul! I didn't mean THAT link... I saw that one... I meant the
> link
> > to the WEBPAGE that had somebody's attempted Schenkerian
reduction
> of
> > some Medieval piece that was totally "out to lunch..."
>
> If you had simply followed the link in that message, you'd find the
> link to the article:
>
> http://web.presby.edu/~danderso/diss/

Thanks, Paul...

I thought I tried that and didn't see it... I must have just missed
it...
>
> hope it still works!

It does...

_______ _____ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson