Do you use counterpoint?

[champbassist]

I just started reading up and understanding counterpoint and it's feeling like an interesting method to apply in composition and to make a bass line more harmonically coherent.

Just wanted to know if any of you guys actually use it actively in your compositions and your views on it.

Thanks!

[Gawd]

I don't use it right now. I'm actually in the same boat as you right now, just started studying it and anxious to see what I can squeeze out of an understanding of counterpoint.

[Chris K]

Yes I do, both in arranging and in by ear playing. I pay attention to avoiding octave and 5ths parallels and I am a fan of creating melodic bass lines to move through chords progressions.

[champbassist]

Originally Posted by Chris K

Yes I do, both in arranging and in by ear playing. I pay attention to avoiding octave and 5ths parallels and I am a fan of creating melodic bass lines to move through chords progressions.

Wow! That's great! Just a question if you could answer, please... say you have a chord progression (assuming you base your bass line on a given chord progression), do you consider the cantus firmus to consist of the root notes of the progression and build a bass line according to that? If not, then what constitutes the cantus firmus in case of a chord progression?

[bassbrad]

Counter point is one of the things in mind when I am creating a bass line. I keep in mind both the melody and chord root movement as well as the overall harmonic flow.

[Jake D]

What is the general theory, in a nut shell, if you don't mind?

[deekay911]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpoint

For me, one of the main characteristics of counterpoint is the contrary motion - i.e one part moving upwards whilst the other moves down, either in a melody line or the chord notes played.

[groooooove]

i use it almost exclusively for vocal harmonies.. wich is really the point of it anyway.

counterpoint rules on bass i dont really think about too often. parallel octaves are usually good.. contrary motion is nice, but thats just as much exclusive to bass playing as it is counterpoint..

[PJSShearer]

I just walk the changes (man).

:-)

[Chris K]

Two questions, two answers;

Cantus firmus: To my knowlegde cantus firmus is essentially a relatively simple melody, that can be placed in whichever voice, including the bass. This has meaning for lots of modern songs where the core is a fixed bass pattern. But since you were asking about harmonizing songs, this does not apply here.

Counterpoint for the contemporary bass player (in a nutshell):
1. Deekay911 is on the dot with contrary motion. Generally, it is less nice to move all voices in the same direction. The role of the bass often is to go up when the melody goes down and the other way around.
2. Like I said, avoid forbidden parallels
3. Avoid second inversion (5th as bass note) on strong beats (unless the entire audience wears boots).
4. If the chords are progressing really nicely, try to add a sense of direction by moving towards a real milestone of the progression taking whole a/o half steps (like in a scale), preferably landing on the root at that milestone

That should do it!

[Thunderthumbs73]

Originally Posted by champbassist

I just started reading up and understanding counterpoint and it's feeling like an interesting method to apply in composition and to make a bass line more harmonically coherent.

Just wanted to know if any of you guys actually use it actively in your compositions and your views on it.

Thanks!

Sometimes counterpoint makes for great bass parts and great music (The Beatles- "Something"), and sometimes it doesn't (AC/DC- "Back In Black")

Music where counterpoint is needed but is not added makes for a boring bass part, and ho-hum music with unfulfulled potential. Vanilla-colored wallpaper. Music where counterpoint is added and really isn't needed makes for noodly, wankish, selfish playing that distracts and detracts from the quality and vibe of the whole music.

Know what belongs where, and which approach is the right one. You'll be a much better bassist and musician for it.

[Muaguana]

I've studied classical theory and do a lot of composing in my spare time, so I tend to think about counterpoint often when playing. "Thinking," though is different than "doing." If I'm grooving to a simple rock back beat, a baroque-esque figured bass line is the last thing you'll hear from me.

As far as what to/not to do, I can't add too much to what Chris K already said. Just keep in mind that music is an art, not a science. Learn and practice the "rules" so you fully understand why they work and sound good, and once you have a well-developed ear for what works in that particular context, break them. As long as you deviate from the norm in an artistic way that works for the music as a whole, Bach's not going to crash through the wall like the Koolaid Man and chuck a harpsichord at your head.

[Rocky]

Bach crashing through the wall like the Koolaid Man and chucking a harpsichord at someones head is actually an hysterical mental picture!

[Chris K]

Originally Posted by Thunderthumbs73

Sometimes counterpoint makes for great bass parts and great music (The Beatles- "Something"), and sometimes it doesn't (AC/DC- "Back In Black")

Music where counterpoint is needed but is not added makes for a boring bass part, and ho-hum music with unfulfulled potential. Vanilla-colored wallpaper. Music where counterpoint is added and really isn't needed makes for noodly, wankish, selfish playing that distracts and detracts from the quality and vibe of the whole music.

Know what belongs where, and which approach is the right one. You'll be a much better bassist and musician for it.

I fully agree to what you say, but would like to add something from my own experience. For me, to use or not use counterpoint never is a clearcut question; it's more like an integrated awareness that serves my music in a natural way.

And surely overdoing things is a very bad habit for bass players, not only in the field of harmony, but also with rhythm, fills, technical stuff, the use of effects etc. etc.

[HaVIC5]

Originally Posted by Chris K

Two questions, two answers;

Cantus firmus: To my knowlegde cantus firmus is essentially a relatively simple melody, that can be placed in whichever voice, including the bass. This has meaning for lots of modern songs where the core is a fixed bass pattern. But since you were asking about harmonizing songs, this does not apply here.

Counterpoint for the contemporary bass player (in a nutshell):
1. Deekay911 is on the dot with contrary motion. Generally, it is less nice to move all voices in the same direction. The role of the bass often is to go up when the melody goes down and the other way around.
2. Like I said, avoid forbidden parallels
3. Avoid second inversion (5th as bass note) on strong beats (unless the entire audience wears boots).
4. If the chords are progressing really nicely, try to add a sense of direction by moving towards a real milestone of the progression taking whole a/o half steps (like in a scale), preferably landing on the root at that milestone

That should do it!

A couple things.

The concept of "Cantus Firmus" has precious little real-world application, especially in contemporary contexts. The concept was created as a way to teach counterpoint in strict contexts to develop compositional technique in various rhythmic ratios (species counterpoint). It wasn't meant as an actual musical form, although there are a lot of examples in Renaissance and Baroque music that could be (incorrectly) analyzed as containing a Cantus Firmus. Unless you're performing undergraduate counterpoint coursework, I wouldn't worry about the idea in any remotely strict sense.

The idea of forbidden parallel fifths is very antiquated - there are plenty of polyphonic textures from the late 19th century until now that are positively rife with them. In fact, without parallelism of perfect consonance, you wouldn't have art forms such as big band arranging. Of course, it has to be intentional, and a general awareness of intervallic relationships is key to understanding counterpoint. The idea of second inversions somehow being "bad" is an even more antiquated concept stemming from the idea that a perfect fourth is a mild dissonance. In contemporary contexts, that's certainly not the case.

Counterpoint as an artform exists far above and beyond the stylistic constrictions placed on it in theory books and classes. Walking basslines are a perfect contemporary example - they're just about the most contrapuntal around. Understanding the melodic contours of walking lines is a great way to get into learning about counterpoint as it applies today.

[A440Hz]

IMHO, it's important to know the "rules" before you break them. Beyond just two-part counterpoint, I think it's important to know the Bach Chorale rules as have been alluded to here:

• No parallel or direct octaves or fifths (Google "direct fifths" if needed)
• Use contrary motion as much as possible
• With first inversions (3rd in the bass), no other thirds should be present in the upper voices (application: if the melody is singing the 3rd degree, don't play a first inversion in the bass line)
• Strong resolutions are stepwise or 5-1
• Second inversions are unstable; use them to build tension, e.g., a pedal point. They aren't inherently bad, you just have to know how to use them
• Leading tones (7ths) get resolved to the root (unless in the inner voices, you can cheat and resolve to the fifth if you need to--obviously, doesn't apply to bass!)

That's a fairly exhaustive list; I may have forgotten some stuff. But knowing these rules--and why they work--is VERY important for knowing how bass works with melody. Even people who haven't studied these rules yet who write great bass parts are using the rules many times just because they have good ears.

I think the no-3rds-in-the-upper-voices-of-a-first-inversion rule is a great sounding thing. I hardly ever break that one.

Yes, yes, I know this is all subjective. But the Bach rules are so persistent in music pedagogy because of their timeless beauty. Sure, break 'em (Jimi Hendrix + Jack Bruce = parallel octaves almost all the time), but know when to break 'em and why you are. I actually love the use of 2nd inversions; modern classical and film composers have used it to great effect to create instability. But you have to know that it's unstable. You have to know the tension you're creating and how to resolve it (or not) properly.

Being unable to "go meta" above the music you're playing can be limiting. Know as much as you can, learn as much as you can, listen as much as you can, then play what sounds good.

[Muaguana]

Originally Posted by A440Hz

IMHO, it's important to know the "rules" before you break them. Beyond just two-part counterpoint, I think it's important to know the Bach Chorale rules as have been alluded to here:

• No parallel or direct octaves or fifths (Google "direct fifths" if needed)
• Use contrary motion as much as possible
• With first inversions (3rd in the bass), no other thirds should be present in the upper voices (application: if the melody is singing the 3rd degree, don't play a first inversion in the bass line)
• Strong resolutions are stepwise or 5-1
• Second inversions are unstable; use them to build tension, e.g., a pedal point. They aren't inherently bad, you just have to know how to use them
• Leading tones (7ths) get resolved to the root (unless in the inner voices, you can cheat and resolve to the fifth if you need to--obviously, doesn't apply to bass!)

Actually, the Bach 4-voice chorale does permit a 3rd in the tenor, alto, or soprano voices in first inversion chords. In a second inversion chord, the fifth must be doubled in either the tenor, alto, or soprano voice. A good use of the second inversion is to play a second inversion I then a V then resolve to the I. Kind of an embellished perfect/imperfect (depending on how the soprano resolves) cadence.

Also, there's an entire set of rules regarding bass motion and how the other voices should move accordingly. For example, if the bass moves by step, one voice must stay in place while the others move stepwise contrary to the bass motion. The only foreseeable problem with using counterpoint in rock music is that, quite often, singer/songwriters don't follow the classical model for chord progressions; they just throw whatever they want together, and since counterpoint rules depend on that chord movement, it's not always possible to follow the rules religiously. Sometimes you can't even justify the chords with tonicization. I'm working with a band right now that rarely has strong V I cadences, and often have progressions like i VI VII VI VII i, or iii ii I V IV. But it's all power chords, so voice leading is nonexistent.

One time I tried to get him to play a diminished triad so the modulation from C major to C minor (which I came up with when he unwittingly modulated to C major for a bridge) would be coherent: I viio V VI V7 i. And he just plays a power chord.

[megadan]

Yes, I use it in basslines and in writing songs. This is just my experiance, but it always works better for me in slower songs. At high tempos strict counterpoint sounds too 'tasteless metal riffing' for me.

Other times I use a similar technique, I'm not sure what it's called. But basically different instruments or elements playing at different speeds on the same scale or chord, or piling chord changes on top of themselves at different tempos.

[Jake D]

I really like this forum and I'm trying to learn as much as I can. I've been playing guitar for over a decade but just started on bass. It seems odd that this is the first I've read about counterpoint.
It seems like a lot of the other jargon goes right over my head, but I suppose that there is no other way to describe some of what you're talking about. I'm lost in 90% of the posts in this forum. But then again, like Frank Zappa said, "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture." As long as I'm playing, I guess I'm doing the right thing. Thanks for all you knowledge, fellas.

[Chris K]

Originally Posted by HaVIC5

The idea of forbidden parallel fifths is very antiquated - there are plenty of polyphonic textures from the late 19th century until now that are positively rife with them. In fact, without parallelism of perfect consonance, you wouldn't have art forms such as big band arranging.

+1 to all the rest you wrote, very thorough as usual.

What you say in the quote is fact also, but we should never underestimate the importance of the Bach chorale rules even for contemporary music, especially for middle of the road popmusic, music for commercials etc. etc.

Parallel 5ths already appear in the late 18th century (the famous 'Mozart's 5th') and were used more and more widely ever since. But those composers knew what they did. They wrote their 5ths on purpose. They paved the road for composers and arrangers who obviously didn't know their stuff that well, or believed that forbidden parallels did not matter anymore.

I disagree. The collective musical memory of people who grew up with western music still 'notices' violations of those ancient rules, in such a way that ordinary people who know nothing about music will like arragements better if they have been written by an arranger who generally applies those ancient rules. I noticed this on many occasions where I rewrote the work of others.

P.S. I hope you don't believe that I completely missed modern harmony.