Do you use counterpoint?

[HaVIC5]

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.

The stylistic considerations of common practice counterpoint are rules specifically designed to construct a particular aesthetic, and are not some how overarching rules designed to cover all styles of music. They simply don't apply in any meaningful way to the majority of contemporary music. More important are the overarching principles of counterpoint regardless of style which include...

*melodic contour
*control of intervallic dissonance
*independence of the voices
*registration

Etc.

The specifics change from style to style, but the underlying principles remain the same. Strict rules from the Baroque aesthetic are merely "considerations" in the big picture of counterpoint.

Jimi Hendrix was NOT breaking any rules of music when he was playing in octaves - he simply wasn't using counterpoint. Not using counterpoint isn't tantamount to heresy, it's just not using counterpoint. Parallel fifths aren't bad, so long as it fits within the aesthetic that has been chosen. To think that they were somehow "rebels," bucking the conventional thinking is rather ludicrous, they simply were using different musical techniques besides counterpoint that had been used for hundreds of years.

To ChrisK...

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.

Interestingly, there are a good number examples of Bach using parallel fifths and octaves (Fugue in E minor from WTC Book 1, for example), but there are always extremely good reasons for doing so. The reason why parallel perfect consonance is bad is because it can work to destroy the independence of the voices (one of the core principles of counterpoint). Sometimes, however, independence of the voices isn't desired, or if harmonic/melodic circumstances (Mozart 5ths) force their use in an otherwise polyphonic texture.

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.

I both agree and disagree. I've worked with enough students new to part writing to know that it takes a little bit of training to really hear "incorrect" parallelisms, and at first they generally have to be told "this is the way it is, do it." To think that the untrained public will be especially adverse to the occasional parallel fifth in multiphonic texture where it isn't supposed might be putting too much faith in a public which hasn't grown up in the Baroque aesthetic. However, harmonization in imperfect consonance - which is more or less a Baroque ideal - can only be called a universal truth. It works well for practically any kind of music. This idea could hardly be called an "ancient rule," but rather, it relates to the control of dissonance, one of the primary concepts of counterpoint.

 

[champbassist]

Thanks all you guys for what is a pretty thorough discussion on counterpoint!

Could any of you tell me, though, if the Kent Kennan book is a nice one for studying the topic?

Thanks!

 

[Chris K]

To ChrisK...

However, harmonization in imperfect consonance - which is more or less a Baroque ideal - can only be called a universal truth. It works well for practically any kind of music. This idea could hardly be called an "ancient rule," but rather, it relates to the control of dissonance, one of the primary concepts of counterpoint.

Agreed, my choice of terms ('ancient rule') could have been better... I meant to say just about the same. I too do not believe that the man in the street would be annoyed by parallel fifths in multiphonic music, by which, I guess, you mean Bach fuga's and the like. But he will - without knowing what is happening - experience these flaws in music that is meant to be consonant.

At this point I would like to share a story that tells the opposite. I once wrote a triple anticipation like the chord c-a- f (soprano-alto-tenor) with bassnote g resolving to c - g - e with bassnote c. You will no doubt recognize this as a mix of authentic and plagal cadence.
Playing this with the band, I met with opposition of some musicians who considered this to be modern and said they didn't like it because it was 'wrong', you know, the chord of F with bassnote G, how can it be o.k.? Then I played them some classical examples, but they kept having doubts. I stayed put. In concert the audience simply liked it.

I tell you this to emphasize that the old 'rules' are no 'laws', but just guidelines that grew slowly over the centuries, and that they contain wisdom that still proves its worth.

 

[rosanne]

Thanks all you guys for what is a pretty thorough discussion on counterpoint!

Could any of you tell me, though, if the Kent Kennan book is a nice one for studying the topic?

Thanks!

I want to add my thanks too! This is a very interesting thread.

 

[megadan]

I learned a lot from this thread, awesome.

 

[A440Hz]

Jimi Hendrix was NOT breaking any rules of music when he was playing in octaves - he simply wasn't using counterpoint. Not using counterpoint isn't tantamount to heresy, it's just not using counterpoint. Parallel fifths aren't bad, so long as it fits within the aesthetic that has been chosen. To think that they were somehow "rebels," bucking the conventional thinking is rather ludicrous, they simply were using different musical techniques besides counterpoint that had been used for hundreds of years.

Yes, this is a really good discussion, all. I would like to clarify that, to me, "Bach chorale rules" =/= "rules of music." That's why I put "rules" in scare quotes (most of the time).

I'm sure most of us will agree that edumacation is a good thing. Knowing some old "rules" (really, just the conventions that Bach used that he drew from the traditions of his day and his own aesthetic sense) is a great way to put our current music in perspective. That was my main point.

Also, Muaguana, there does seem to be ambiguity regarding doubling the third. [Invalid or Expired Link Removed] claims that doubling the 3rd should be avoided unless it's required by voice leading or if it's a vii6 chord. So my absolute statement was in error; I should've stated it as a Bach-rule guideline, not a prohibition.

 

[Muaguana]

Also, Muaguana, there does seem to be ambiguity regarding doubling the third. [Invalid or Expired Link Removed] claims that doubling the 3rd should be avoided unless it's required by voice leading or if it's a vii6 chord. So my absolute statement was in error; I should've stated it as a Bach-rule guideline, not a prohibition.

Apologies; I was a bit ambiguous myself in what I said before. I should have said doubling the third was permitted by necessity; doubling the root is preferable in most instances. And you're right about the viio6 part; I nearly forgot that one since just recently I wrote a bass guitar/tenor sax piece based on the locrian scale, so four-part voice leading rules took a back seat for a few months.

 

[HaVIC5]

Apologies; I was a bit ambiguous myself in what I said before. I should have said doubling the third was permitted by necessity; doubling the root is preferable in most instances. And you're right about the viio6 part; I nearly forgot that one since just recently I wrote a bass guitar/tenor sax piece based on the locrian scale, so four-part voice leading rules took a back seat for a few months.

The "rules" for doubling thirds vary from source to source, and if you reference Kostka/Payne or Piston (the two most widely used music theory texts) you'll find a set of different and conflicting rules. Composers had their own schemes, and often broke them, but it more or less boiled down to "whichever sounds the most stable and preserves the integrity of the voices." This very often includes avoiding doubling the root, and there are plenty of situations where it is "wrong" to double the root.

The unambiguous and easy rule to follow when considering voice doublings is "double the tonal degrees of the key 1, 2, 4, 5." This means...

For the I chord, double the root or fifth
For the II chord, double the root or third
For the III chord double the third
For the IV chord, double the root or fifth
For the V chord, double the root or fifth
For the VI chord, double the third
For the VII chord, double the third or fifth (fifth is questionable at times)

Conveniently, you don't need to memorize all of this, just remember scale degrees 1 2 4 5, and you have a nice and easy way to approach doublings. Of course, there are plenty of cases where you'll need to bend the rules, but its a rule that follows practice a lot more closely than "double the root."

 

[HaVIC5]

At this point I would like to share a story that tells the opposite. I once wrote a triple anticipation like the chord c-a- f (soprano-alto-tenor) with bassnote g resolving to c - g - e with bassnote c. You will no doubt recognize this as a mix of authentic and plagal cadence.
Playing this with the band, I met with opposition of some musicians who considered this to be modern and said they didn't like it because it was 'wrong', you know, the chord of F with bassnote G, how can it be o.k.? Then I played them some classical examples, but they kept having doubts. I stayed put. In concert the audience simply liked it.

Well, mixing aesthetics is always a laudible goal, and there are often times where conventions simply clash. For the triadic language and aesthetic of contemporary folk and rock, common practice style suspensions and dissonance can sound VERY modern within that context, the same way that it might sound trite and old fashioned within other contexts. Of course, that was likely your goal, throw a gear into the texture that would perk ears.

 

[A440Hz]

At this point I would like to share a story that tells the opposite. I once wrote a triple anticipation like the chord c-a- f (soprano-alto-tenor) with bassnote g resolving to c - g - e with bassnote c. You will no doubt recognize this as a mix of authentic and plagal cadence.
Playing this with the band, I met with opposition of some musicians who considered this to be modern and said they didn't like it because it was 'wrong', you know, the chord of F with bassnote G, how can it be o.k.? Then I played them some classical examples, but they kept having doubts. I stayed put. In concert the audience simply liked it.

Sounds like a slash chord to me (F/G). That, of course, is not 'legit' notation. And "slash chords" have nothing to do with power chords played on a Guns 'n Roses song.

I happen to really like the IV/V slash chord a lot. It makes a really good transition chord for key changes, as it has a dominant-only quality about it to me. "Hey Nineteen" by Steely Dan has a recurring bIII/IV - IV/V - I cadence thing going on that has been a big influence.

That's not a key change in that song, but the same whole-step motion of that chord can work, for instance, in changing to a key a whole step higher (e.g., in the key of C going to D: C - F/G - G/A - D major, in the new key).

 

[Chris K]

Well, mixing aesthetics is always a laudible goal, and there are often times where conventions simply clash. For the triadic language and aesthetic of contemporary folk and rock, common practice style suspensions and dissonance can sound VERY modern within that context, the same way that it might sound trite and old fashioned within other contexts. Of course, that was likely your goal, throw a gear into the texture that would perk ears.

This last sentence you wrote is what it's all about in the end. In each style of music there is a set of conventions people got accustomed to through listening, playing, discussing etc. etc. To create something special (or even outstanding, but that clearly is beyond my possibilities) an artist
1. will both show he or she can create something new within the existing context, but on the other hand
2. will break away from it every once in a while.
How often this is to happen lies in the balance between the artist's bravery and the acceptance level of his audiences.

But an underlying condition to go for some adventure is knowledge of what is already there.