Double Bass Counter Point basics

[gbf]

this is very very interesting... i would like to see DZ's pms posted here for all of us to learn from it

 

[Ed Fuqua]

Does anybody else get the impression that WALLY GATOR is speed reading a legit theory text?

WALLY - what are you getting at? Or trying to get at? I kind of get the feeling that you are trying to teach yourself music theory in an attempt to get deeper into the music. But I don't think this shotgunning of questions is doing you any more good than the speed reading. Slow down, focus and try to see the forest as well as the cylindrical object, covered in a rough brown substance, in front of you.

 

[Anon2962]

By far the best 'instructional' (i use the term loosely) book: Gradus Ad Parnassum - Fux. Quick search brought [Invalid or Expired Link Removed] up as the first link. And yes, the eraser is by far your most needed tool!

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Does anybody else get the impression that WALLY GATOR is speed reading a legit theory text?

Yup.

WALLY - what are you getting at? Or trying to get at? I kind of get the feeling that you are trying to teach yourself music theory in an attempt to get deeper into the music. But I don't think this shotgunning of questions is doing you any more good than the speed reading. Slow down, focus and try to see the forest as well as the cylindrical object, covered in a rough brown substance, in front of you.

Agreed. If you really want to learn how to write 16th century couterpoint, listen to Palestrina for about 3 hours a day. For 18th century couterpoint, try Bach's WTC (both books). For canon technique, listen to the Musical Offering. All of the theoretical stuff is just technical explanations of the above which were added after the fact...without the sound, all of the rules of species counterpoint amount to the musical version of "hooked on phonics".

 

[walters]

Thanks for the help guys

Which composers used alot of canon's melodys i like how they
would copy the melody and play it at a fix distance or interval
against the original melody its like overlapping effects
I know bach was the master at canons who else did canon's and fugues?

 

[Anon2962]

Sorry, but I disagree that the way to learn counterpoint is to listen. You have to understand the rules before you can know how they can be bent. Fux's book, for me, is the only way to go. It written like a transcript from the lessons of a student given by a master composer. Listening might be fun and intersting, and of course the rules only became common practice after the fact, but it is essential the basics be learned first in order to understand the more complex species.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Sorry, but I disagree that the way to learn counterpoint is to listen. You have to understand the rules before you can know how they can be bent. Fux's book, for me, is the only way to go. It written like a transcript from the lessons of a student given by a master composer. Listening might be fun and intersting, and of course the rules only became common practice after the fact, but it is essential the basics be learned first in order to understand the more complex species.

I couldn't disagree more, but that's cool. When I studied counterpoint as an undergrad, I went with the species approach, and wrote weak, uninspired work. As a grad student, my teacher had me listen to and study Palestrina and Bach nonstop, and the music flowed out. To each his own.

 

[walters]

I went to like 5 music stores and couldn't find a fugue or canon by any composer only bachs the art of fugues no canan or fugue by any composer which ones should i get to practice listening?

Pachelbel's canon in Dmaj. . The canon itself is as you say melody lines offset against each other


How do i write melody lines offsetting the original melody?


Just like this Pachelbel's canon just like he did?

Bachs The Art of Fugues organ:

How do i write offset melodies against the original melody?

 

[Anon2962]

I couldn't disagree more, but that's cool. When I studied counterpoint as an undergrad, I went with the species approach, and wrote weak, uninspired work. As a grad student, my teacher had me listen to and study Palestrina and Bach nonstop, and the music flowed out. To each his own.

Wel, I definately DO agree that studying 'textbook' style leads to mathematical, unmusical but logical end products, and also, as i mentioned, I only studied this for a year, so i'm definately no expert. But don't you think that you need the rules drilled in at the early stages before you can progress? The approach our professor took was that music, at it's most basic (without going too philosophical), is organised sound. Counterpoint is the logical place to start to learn how western art music is constructed, and pretty simply organised, once the rules are learned. Sounds like you're probably in a better position to see the bigger picture though!

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Wel, I definately DO agree that studying 'textbook' style leads to mathematical, unmusical but logical end products, and also, as i mentioned, I only studied this for a year, so i'm definately no expert. But don't you think that you need the rules drilled in at the early stages before you can progress? The approach our professor took was that music, at it's most basic (without going too philosophical), is organised sound. Counterpoint is the logical place to start to learn how western art music is constructed, and pretty simply organised, once the rules are learned. Sounds like you're probably in a better position to see the bigger picture though!

Well, in the bigger picture, I think of music as just another language, and that if a person wishes to speak that language, they would be better served speaking that language daily and immersing themselves in great literature than studying the rules of grammar and syntax. To me, the study of grammar is only to be used as a last resort in speaking or writing when intuition fails, and only then as a stopgap measure until the particular problem at hand can be internalized. But like I said, YMMV, as everyone's does.

 

[Ric Vice]

Does anybody else get the impression that WALLY GATOR is speed reading a legit theory text?

WALLY - what are you getting at? Or trying to get at? I kind of get the feeling that you are trying to teach yourself music theory in an attempt to get deeper into the music. But I don't think this shotgunning of questions is doing you any more good than the speed reading. Slow down, focus and try to see the forest as well as the cylindrical object, covered in a rough brown substance, in front of you.

Dear Ed,
I was trying to have lunch while reading this exchange, broke into hysterical fits of laughter and nearly had to find someone to perform a heimlich on me. I'm laughing so hard now I can't see the screen anymore.

Ric

 

[godoze]

kids, you cannot possibly expect an undergrad with no clue about counterpoint to write good music. counterpoint is one area of composition in which the conventions must first be mastered. yes, as a grad student studying Palestrina the expectations are higher (but i still did a lot of erasing !)

you gotta learn the rules first.

 

[Anon2962]

Well, in the bigger picture, I think of music as just another language, and that if a person wishes to speak that language, they would be better served speaking that language daily and immersing themselves in great literature than studying the rules of grammar and syntax. To me, the study of grammar is only to be used as a last resort in speaking or writing when intuition fails, and only then as a stopgap measure until the particular problem at hand can be internalized. But like I said, YMMV, as everyone's does.

OK, I hear what you're saying, and I may be getting annoyingly off topic, and forgive me if i am!, but here goes.

While both language and music do share certain attributes, music is not a language. One of my pet hates is the concept that certain chords can be said 'mean' certain things (i.e. min chord = sad, maj=happy, maj6th=applause ), not that you were saying this, but this is about as far as one can appreciate western art music if taking this 'linguistic' approach alone, ie searching for literal or conceptual meanings in the individual chords/sounds heard. The fact is that common practice western art music is based on the V-I cadence, and the tensions that can be created by manipulating this relationship. Of course on a deeper level, one can discuss the way a composer created certain tensions and why, but again, this is not possible if listening in a 'linguistic' way. I think that music is not a language, and should not be treated as such. It is a more complex yet purer form of communication, and one unlike any other.

So, getting back to my point, in order to understand how music is composed, it must be studied. I don't think that listening alone can give a well rounded understanding. But that's just what I think, I imagine there are many schools of thought on this subject.

 

[jazzbassnerd]

kids, you cannot possibly expect an undergrad with no clue about counterpoint to write good music. counterpoint is one area of composition in which the conventions must first be mastered. yes, as a grad student studying Palestrina the expectations are higher (but i still did a lot of erasing !)

you gotta learn the rules first.

I think that your point is only somewhat valid. I think that anyone can right good or even great music. But, they can not right good counterpointal (is that a word?) music.

Now I do understand that most of everything interesting in music comes from counter-melodies, etc. (basically counterpoint), but I don't think that intensive study is required for someone's music to be good. I think there are a lot of undergrad composition majors and undergrad composition teachers that would agree.

There are plenty of young guys who are writing good music that I'm sure can not write a "good" peice of classical counterpointal (there it is again) music.

This is very off topic though. Sorry for my semi-almost-rantish-thing. DZ I don't mean to be mean at all, just simple disagreement.

PS. I don't think that you can learn to write music by asking questions over the internet, and I think that the suggestion of listening was the best one that anyone gave because the idea that books would teach you how to write breaks down quickly in my head: books are words, words aren't music, sounds are music. Books tend to say that music is governed by rules, tell the first guy who sang a different note than the monk next to him, or the Coltrane, or Miles, or Beethoven, or *enter any musical great/genius* that music is governed by rules.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

While both language and music do share certain attributes, music is not a language. One of my pet hates is the concept that certain chords can be said 'mean' certain things (i.e. min chord = sad, maj=happy, maj6th=applause ), not that you were saying this, but this is about as far as one can appreciate western art music if taking this 'linguistic' approach alone, ie searching for literal or conceptual meanings in the individual chords/sounds heard. The fact is that common practice western art music is based on the V-I cadence, and the tensions that can be created by manipulating this relationship. Of course on a deeper level, one can discuss the way a composer created certain tensions and why, but again, this is not possible if listening in a 'linguistic' way. I think that music is not a language, and should not be treated as such. It is a more complex yet purer form of communication, and one unlike any other.

I think that the language analogy is excellent as long as it is not taken too literally. Music is nothing if not conversational, especially counterpuntal music. While it is true that musical notes and structures do not convey prescribed meanings in the same way that spoken language does, neither does language convey color, shape, and texture as does music. The important point of the analogy is in the usage of either: one is either fluent in the language - in which case one is building structures intuitively that make sense in the context of what is happening in that moment - or one is not, in which case a tourist may have to look up a phrase such as "where the **** is the bathroom?" in order to communicate to a native. In the latter case, the communication is limited by a strict lack of vocabulary, and no real communication is likely. In the former case, the main focus is on where the conversation is going, and the rules are only running subconsciously in the background.

So, getting back to my point, in order to understand how music is composed, it must be studied. I don't think that listening alone can give a well rounded understanding. But that's just what I think, I imagine there are many schools of thought on this subject.

Keep in mind, I teach music theory for a living. While I understand what you are saying, my three-year-old has no clue what a noun or a verb is is, yet he uses them every day while learning to talk, and he communicates quite well. Will he ever have to study grammar? Sure...but it will only be useful when he runs into a wall that he can't pass. Until then, he's just imitating; "playing by ear", if you will - and I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[Anon2962]

Music is nothing if not conversational, especially counterpuntal music.

While it is true that musical notes and structures do not convey prescribed meanings in the same way that spoken language does, neither does language convey color, shape, and texture as does music.

...

You have some really interesting points. (Hooray for TB! ). I think we are talking about slightly different things. I'm talking about counterpoint in its purest sense, species counterpoint, not just contrapuntal music. I also think that you are coming at the arguement from a jazz point of view, where the improvisatory role is affected by the spontaneity of others in the group. Certainly the analogy works better here, but is still not, in my opinion, accurate.

While it is true that musical notes and structures do not convey prescribed meanings in the same way that spoken language does, neither does language convey color, shape, and texture as does music.

...

I agree that music cannot convey shape, colour and texture as language can. How do you write "Autumnal yellow" in musical terms? Likewise with shape and texture. These are words used to describe music, and are not accurate either using music to describe words, or vice cersa.

fluent in the language - in which case one is building structures intuitively that make sense in the context of what is happening in that moment - ...the main focus is on where the conversation is going, and the rules are only running subconsciously in the background.

Again the 'conversation' analogy works better in a jazz setting rather than classical. I believe 'conventions' might be a better term to use instead of 'language'. to throughly know what is or is not appropriate allows for the intuitive structures to be built. This is true of classical music compostion also; an intersting concept, that jazz music is in a way 'composed live' under the same kind of restrictions (although there are arguably less of them) as classical music.

When you say 'where the conversation is going', I guess you're still talking 'in the moment', right? And by conversation you describe the way that we 'play off each other', and individual musical ideas influence each other? I guess this is where the analogy best fits. Maybe it is true to say that in this situation there is a kind of musical conversation talking place. But I think this is as far as I'd take the 'music is a language' idea. It's kind of like a language. It's also kind of like painting. It's kind of like playing fetch with a dog. These analogies do not accurately describe music, but all may have some truth.

Keep in mind, I teach music theory for a living. While I understand what you are saying, my three-year-old has no clue what a noun or a verb is is, yet he uses them every day while learning to talk, and he communicates quite well. Will he ever have to study grammar? Sure...but it will only be useful when he runs into a wall that he can't pass. Until then, he's just imitating; "playing by ear", if you will - and I wouldn't have it any other way.

I suspect that your three-year-old could never take a grammar lesson, and still speak perfect english. But I don't think that this applies to western art music, or even jazz. In order to create music, I think a certain amount of study must be done. Of course there are gifted individuals who seem to be born with the ability to understand music without any understanding, and I do agree that exposure to good music, like exposure to verbal language, is an essential part of musical learning.

 

[Anon2962]

tell the first guy who sang a different note than the monk next to him, or the Coltrane, or Miles, or Beethoven, or *enter any musical great/genius* that music is governed by rules.

You have to know the rules to understand how they can be bent. As I'm sure Coltrane, Miles and Beethoven did.

 

[jazzbassnerd]

I don't think of there as being any rules. There is stuff that works (some would say rules) and stuff that doesn't work (again, some would call these rules). I think that if you can play a melodic, musical, beautiful sounding line that lands on the natural fourth of a dominant chord, and then continue to play just as beautifully by following "the rules," no one should tell you after your solo that you played the 4th on a dominant chord.

I think that rules make boundaries. Art has none.

 

[Anon2962]

If that's what you meant to play, then sure. But if you there are no 'rules' then there is only choas. Which you can argue is art too., but I find the way people bend the rules to be intersting. Without rules/conventions there's be nothing to bend!

 

[jazzbassnerd]

If that's what you meant to play, then sure. But if you there are no 'rules' then there is only choas. Which you can argue is art too., but I find the way people bend the rules to be intersting. Without rules/conventions there's be nothing to bend!

I would agree, mostly.