Is this counterpoint?

[MYGFH]

Hi,
Been a fan of Sevendust for years and wanted to share this video. It is great in that there are no drums to have to listen through to hear the guitars.

 

[Devyn Eclipse Nav]

Nah, but is cool intertwining guitar parts.

Counterpoint is rather confusing, and basically a very strict way of taking a melody and creating harmonies with it. It definitely results in some very awesome sounding melodies, when done well, but at least for me, it was hard as hell, I can't say I liked it

 

[AugmentedFourth]

Counterpoint is multiple (more than one) independent melodies taking place simultaneously in different voices.

 

[Mr. Big Noodles]

Counterpoint is rather confusing, and basically a very strict way of taking a melody and creating harmonies with it. It definitely results in some very awesome sounding melodies, when done well, but at least for me, it was hard as hell, I can't say I liked it

Species counterpoint is strict, because it is an academic model. Academic models restrict your decisions so that you are forced into good habits. Practical counterpoint can be extremely loose. It's art - it can be whatever you want it to be. However, it's a good idea to know what you're doing before you start doing it. I'll put it like this: species counterpoint is like zooming in with a microscope on every single interval. If I'm writing for 6 instruments to play over 20 minutes, I don't have the time to say, "Oh, this fourth is objectionable," or "There's a parallel fifth right there in between those other fifty-thousand perfectly fine notes." I try to make melodic solutions to counterpoint. An example:

Okay, in example 1, we have this F lydian pentachordal figure played in octaves. That's not counterpoint, just an octave doubling. Notice that I am using "1" under all of those notes to indicate the interval of a unison/octave. The arrows indicate the parallel motion, so those are parallel octaves. We want to avoid that.

In example 2, I've offset the bass voice by half of a measure. It's still the exact same melody. This works well for this figure: we get a good mix of intervals (a perfect fifth followed by a major third, followed by an octave, followed by a minor sixth, followed by a perfect fourth... it's a nice variety). That's what you get from the contrary motion (notice the arrows going in different directions). This has the added bonus of the bass melody overlapping and continuing where the soprano melody stops, so you have a bit of transition space to start something new in the soprano.

Example 3 has the bass melody beginning a beat after the soprano melody. This is also nice, because we get a bit of parallel motion (consecutive thirds) followed by some contrary motion, then some more parallel motion (consecutive sixths) at the end. We get both thirds and sixths here, which is nice. And, once again, since the soprano ends before the bass, you have the bass holding down the fort while you start something new in the soprano.

Example 4 is with the bass moved to beat 4. Once again, contrary motion. Once again, good mix of intervals. Once again, the bass hangs over while the soprano has a chance to start something new. And since the bass starts so much later than the soprano, it has time to really be heard as its own entity.

I'm doing all four of these with imitation at the octave. It's really basic - no extraneous pitches, the first line is literally the second line (only separated by metric placement). I could move any of these to an offbeat if I wanted secundal harmony, but thirds are a bit more friendly.

We can do all sorts of stuff to get more variety and to flesh out our counterpoint. Here, the bass voice is transposed down a third:

Example 1 is the exact same thing as it was previously, except we get thirds instead of octaves. A little better, but still pretty boring.

Example 2 as always has great intervals, owing to that contrary motion (hint hint). The seventh going to the fifth is kind of poo-pooed in species counterpoint, but I think it sounds just fine (and that's how it resolves harmonically, anyway). Contrary motion will always sound good, even if there are some rough harmonies here and there. Try it out some time.

Example 3 has a bit of that parallel motion, as well as a it of contrary motion. The intervals on this one aren't so good: parallel fifths, parallel octaves, no good. If the bass melody had a different transposition, it would work out better.

Example 4 is fine again. Fifth going to third going to octave is admissible. You want to avoid fifths and octaves following each other (5-5, 1-1, 5-1, 1-5). Fourths are also crummy. Sevenths and seconds... you have to be adventurous. They're rough intervals, but good if that's what you're going for and if you know how to use them.

The other thing you can do is invert the subject. The one I've chosen isn't the best for this, but we'll give it a go. First, at the unison.

Example 1 has good intervals. It's homorhythmic, though. I dislike that everything overlaps.

Example 2 has bad intervals. So does Example 3, actually. Example 4 is okay, but is boring. At least its rhythm is good. Let's do this with a transposition.

At the third:

1 is good again, 2 is bad (sorry, those are seconds, not thirds), 3 is crap (well, matter of opinion, but it's really rough and has a lot of parallelism), and 4 is awful. Maybe a different transposition.

At the sixth:

Okay, this isn't much better. 3 and 4 are the major offenders, and 1 and 2 are actually workable. But even if the intervals are bad, being able to hear the melodies will fix a lot of problems. It won't be perfect, but if you smash a melody against itself in a million different ways, the effect will be developmental. This is a more compositional and improvisational way of using counterpoint to me: find ways in which to make a melody interact with itself, even if it does have rough patches. You can fix the rough spots if you want, or keep the parts that don't "work."

Melody is your friend. Imitation is your friend. Contrary motion is your friend.

 

[OmegaSlayer]

Is that a form of canone, right?

 

[Mr. Big Noodles]

^ Precisamente.

 

[ncfiala]

Nah, but is cool intertwining guitar parts.

Counterpoint is rather confusing, and basically a very strict way of taking a melody and creating harmonies with it. It definitely results in some very awesome sounding melodies, when done well, but at least for me, it was hard as hell, I can't say I liked it

My understanding of counterpoint is that it's more the opposite. Making several simultaneous melodies from harmony. There are lots of academic rules, but the basic idea seems to be creating melodies that are "smooth" (lots of small steps) and "independent" (lots of contrary motion).

 

[Mr. Big Noodles]

My understanding of counterpoint is that it's more the opposite. Making several simultaneous melodies from harmony.

That's one interpretation. I think that there is a spectrum of music between the entirely horizontal and the entirely vertical. Pérotin would have been more of a horizontal thinker. William Byrd was also pretty horizontal. Bach, horizontal, but at the same time quite vertical. Beethoven could switch between being extremely horizontal and extremely vertical. I think that Wagner exagerated these extremes: he could build music that was nothing but imitative counterpoint, or music that was nothing but chords. Stravinsky is an example of a character who was extremely vertical at times, and he wrote in chunks as well, but he was also capable of agile horizontal writing. Bartók and Ligeti, so damn horizontal, you'd think they were planking.

Completely vertical music is extremely rare, as music is by nature a horizontal art (and should be enjoyed horizontally), but I won't say that it doesn't exist. I'm having a hard time thinking of good examples of vertical music off the top of my head. I think the first movement of Górecki's second symphony counts. Maybe Scnittke's Variations on a Chord, but even that has some important rhythmic information. The inexhaustible repository of I IV V songs would count, but it's really the melody that makes those things work. Jazz harmony is taught nearly exclusively from a vertical standpoint, which is one of the reasons why I have such a bone to pick with chord scale concept.

There are lots of academic rules, but the basic idea seems to be creating melodies that are "smooth" (lots of small steps) and "independent" (lots of contrary motion).

I like this reduction.

 

[OmegaSlayer]

Is there a "reason" why contrary motion works so naturally well in counterpoints?

 

[Mr. Big Noodles]

Because contrary motion is awesome.[/thread]

There are probably a few reasons. For one, it is easier to hear two melodies when they are doing two completely different things. In parallel motion, one melody becomes subordinate to the other, so you lose that individualism. As you can see in my illustrations, you get a better variety of intervals with contrary motion. The consistent expansion or contraction of intervals is also interesting, and there's nothing quite as dramatic as when the high thing goes higher while the low thing goes lower. I find metaphysical satisfaction in contrary motion as well. It's a yin-yang sort of deal: there is a positive image, as well as a complementary negative image. When the two are put together, you have balance and completeness. Who doesn't want completeness in their life?

Contrary motion speaks for itself, though. Listen to the first thirty seconds or so of Brahms' Op.1:

Johannes Brahms - Piano Sonata No.1 in C


Hear that contrary motion from 0:26 to 0:30? If not, you can still see it. That's awesome shit right there.

Edit: I should mention that Brahms is a masterful contrapuntalist, and this sonata is an excellent example of that style of writing.

 

[Gregory Frus]

I'm new to this forum but absolutely love it!! I started studying counterpoint a few months ago. I'm only working with two voices at the moment. I think the rules and restrictions explain why the Masters sound the way they do (the metaphysical satisfaction mentioned by the Theory God). Love this stuff!!

 

[OmegaSlayer]

Was analyzing your stuff a bit Nood.

I take one example to have you back and have an opinion if things can work or get worse.

Example number 3

What if we try to save it removing the 2 and 7 intervals and just keep the first E in the bass line for half the beat?
It loses movement in the bass line but it gets better intervals.
We would go from a 3-5-2-7-7-5-3 interval situation to a 3-5-3-5-4-5-3 situation having all good intervals which alternates and avoid the sequence of fifth and octave intervals.

 

[Mr. Big Noodles]

I don't like the 5-4-5. And yeah, you can alter the line a little bit, but then you're getting farther away from imitative counterpoint. I prefer to keep it fairly strict. You can also experiment with moving to other rhythmic locations. Both of these work, though the first one has the bass line altered:

The problem isn't so much the intervals, but the parallelism.

 

[OmegaSlayer]

Cool, got it, thanks

 

[Ror]

Bartók and Ligeti, so damn horizontal, you'd think they were planking.

Reading this post, I was waiting for you to mention Bartók as an example of horizontal thinking. I was not disappointed

 

[Explorer]

Because contrary motion is awesome.[/thread]

 

[ghost_of_karelia]

Just popped in to say I've recently got into studying counterpoint and harmony. Damn it's awesome. \m/

 

[OmegaSlayer]

I don't like the 5-4-5. And yeah, you can alter the line a little bit, but then you're getting farther away from imitative counterpoint. I prefer to keep it fairly strict. You can also experiment with moving to other rhythmic locations. Both of these work, though the first one has the bass line altered:

The problem isn't so much the intervals, but the parallelism.

How would you apply canon in some "easier/direct" kind of music?
I like the dynamics of "stop'n'go" in classical music, still I totally don't like it in rock/hard rock/metal.

When I listen to a song and everything stops then only a guitar remains, it gives me the impression that the music is watered down and...the composer couldn't think a way to join 2 pieces of song via an arrangement.

While this is totally my problem as a listener, it's something I face when I compose.

Is it acceptable that the second voice of a canon plays something else instead of a starting the beat with a pause?

 

[Mr. Big Noodles]

How would you apply canon in some "easier/direct" kind of music?
I like the dynamics of "stop'n'go" in classical music, still I totally don't like it in rock/hard rock/metal.

I can think of some examples from 1970's jazz rock and prog.

Khan - Mixed Up Man of the Mountains


2:51. In addition to imitative counterpoint, there is a lot of other kinds of counterpoint in this song. Get something with contrary motion and different rhythms, and you're good to go.

Gentle Giant was all over the 16th century polyphony.

Gentle Giant - Advent of Panurge


Weirdest band ever. I've never seen such a dorky bunch of dudes groove so hard, then go into a recorder consort breakdown.

Gentle Giant - A Cry for Everyone


Imitative at 0:35-1:20, and that stuff happens again multiple times.

Here's some guy who did a fugue out of Hindemith's Ludus Tonalis on rock instruments:



I have no idea what the big cut in the middle is about.

These are just examples of textbook counterpoint. Really, just make sure that each instrument is puling its own. When you have two guitars and a bass and they're all playing the same riff, something's up. Just write melodically, you know?

When I listen to a song and everything stops then only a guitar remains, it gives me the impression that the music is watered down and...the composer couldn't think a way to join 2 pieces of song via an arrangement.

That's not a counterpoint thing, that's an orchestration thing and possibly a texture thing.

Is it acceptable that the second voice of a canon plays something else instead of a starting the beat with a pause?

Naturally. Do whatever you want. Invention No. 9 has both voices starting on the downbeat.



^ Ignore the weird advertisement up front. I don't see why people obsess about this kind of shit.

 

[OmegaSlayer]

When I was 16-18 (half a life ago) and in my creative time, I always wrote 2 guitars and bass playing 3 different lines.
Surely it wasn't refined counterpoint and was quite elementary and more than once it wasn't classic Iron Maiden twin guitars.
Though was something more along the lines of writing something that was more interesting than written with theory awareness.
Basically I found boring having 2 guitars playing the same riff and bass playing just the bass line going du-du-du-du.
I hate those long pedals Manowar style, I mean, I don't hate them per se, I hate to do them in my music because I get bored to play it
So it was some elementary research of more complexity.

Anyway, thanks for Gentle Giant, it's a band I heard a lot about ages ago, pre internet era, and that I always wanted to listen to, but fell into the oblivion when I could actually research about it.
I will only say WOW!

I loved Khan as well, thanks for that mention too