# Fux's Gradus ad parnassum still relevant?



## José Herring (Nov 7, 2006)

Patrick de Caumette @ Tue Nov 07 said:


> I've been working on my counterpoint lately and I am currently reading Fux's works and particularly his "Gradus ad Parnassum"
> 
> I was curious about your opinions about the relevance of this title in the begining of the 21st century. Obviously most rules still stand but have we broken new ground since?



In my opinion yes and no.

From my experience I can tell the difference between composers who have a good grasp of counterpoint and those who do not. For one thing those that do usually engage in much better and more coordinated part writing.

On the other hand I find most of Fux's rules antiquated. Most of the rules aren't really rules but rather an effort of the composers of the time to break away from the parallel organum of previous generations. Problem with me is that I love parallel octaves, forths and fifths and consider them pretty common and good sounding, very powerful and resonnant.

If I were to study Fux today I'd chuck all the rules and begin with the basics. How to make 2 lines sound good together, then three, then four, always resevering the bottom line as the bass line.

For me Fux has been a blessing and a curse. Firstly, a blessing because it taught me how to create a big sound with few intruments by engaging in good polyphonic independent yet coordinated lines. I swear thinking in this way you can make 6 strings sound in symphony. No lie.

A curse because it turned me off for too many years too the nice sounds one can get from more homophonic chordal structures in an orchestra. And as I study more orchestration I find that the idea of the orchestra sprang from chordal instruments like the organ and thus sounds it's best when treated as such for the most part. This is my opinion as of late.

Personally, I've found that Bach's approach to counterpoint to be more in tune with modern day thinking. From Bach we can derive good chord voicings, voice leading, choral structure, fugues, and such. I'm always suprised by the number of pop and rock artist that study Bach's works. Yet at the same time many universities teach mostly Fux or some professor's bastardization of Fux and yet routinely graduates people that couldn't compose their way out of a paper bag.

In the end I find all the tools helpfull in some way. I don't think that I could compose without having studied Fux for he was the one after many years of study in school that lead me to the cognition that classical composers where using some form of his teachings to achieve many great works. Though I think that if you take him at his word you'll end up at the end of the book with too many rules and not enough tools to actually get a job done.

Jose


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 7, 2006)

Thanks for your input Jose.

Personally, I am checking out his concepts and after hearing them, I am making my own opinion on the relevance of some of Flux's rules. 
Most times than not, the rules work...but I also think that parallel fifths, fourth,,,etc can be cool (during a seminar Scott Smalley mentionned that he had no problem with parallel fifths in the string section but I believe he also said that it didn't work so well with choirs)
Quite a bit of musical evolution has happened since Flux's time and nowadays' dissonance is certainly way beyond what people could tolerate then.

I still enjoy the read though...


----------



## Hannes_F (Nov 7, 2006)

Patrick de Caumette @ Tue Nov 07 said:


> Most times than not, the rules work...but I also think that parallel fifths, fourth,,,etc can be cool



My 2 c: There is a difference between rules and the underlying principles.

Octaves, fifths and fourths tend to blend more than the other intervals. That is the principle, and it is just an acoustical fact that does not have anything to do with style or taste (but the difference of 'blending potential' between the intervals can indeed be dependent on the instrument choice as with the choir example). 

So if you want to keep the autonomy of lines, avoid the parallel movement of these intervals, for blending them to compact sounds use them (these are rules, and they are dependent of the context). 

An accidentary parallel fifth of fourth in the middle of a passage will immediately blend and therefore form a stronger line than the others, drawing the attention to it. If you want that, use it, if it distracts, it may be better to avoid it.

For me counterpoint knowledge is an absolute essential for orchestral and chamber music. Even if you want to break it. Whenever others or I myself are too lazy in that respect it sticks out like a sore thumb - and nearly always when somebody presents his first 'epic' or 'action cue' I want to reccommend studying some more counterpoint. But I am too polite, hehe, and ... 'go learn your harmony and counterpoint' sounds much more academic than my attitude is :roll: . 

The second aspect I learned is that counterpoint rules can make creative. Whenever I find myself guilty of taking a short edge that has lead to an unwanted parallel or voice-exchange it forces me to invent a better solution. Afterwards it is better nearly always.

That being said it has been a long time since I studied counterpoint and maybe I should open the Fux for a closer look again.


Hannes


----------



## charles (Nov 7, 2006)

> Counterpoint must be seperated from composition, if the ideal and practical truth of both are to come into their own right.
> 
> ... The discipline of counterpoint is not meant to teach a specifice style of composition, but to serve to lead the ear for the first time into the endless sphere of original problems in music. The ear must be led to distinguish the characteristics of the intervals of music... and must learn to understand situations in which two, three or four voices are brought together.
> 
> ..... Counterpoint must restrict itself on the basis of a modest exercise... to demonstrating the nature of the problems and their solutions, and should not attempt to be more than a preparation... for genuine composition.



Heinrich Schenker


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 7, 2006)

All good, relevant points indeed.

Fux's text having had such an important influence on composers such as Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven (sorry if I associated compostion and counterpoint in the same sentence :smile: ) it must be to the benefit of the contemporary composer to know those rules and guidelines in order to adequately emulate those masters' works on occasion (read "when hired to write in that genre")

Obvously, the knowledge of Flux's counterpoint principles alone would not be enough to write in the style of Beethoven but would ensure that counterpoint for the piece remains within context...


----------



## Hannes_F (Nov 8, 2006)

... like maybe 
http://www.frischat.com/compose/Hannes_Frischat_StringTrio_Moderato_C_04_2006e.mp3 (http://www.frischat.com/compose/Hannes_ ... _2006e.mp3)

Hannes


----------



## bluejay (Nov 8, 2006)

Hannes_F @ Tue Nov 07 said:


> ...when somebody presents his first 'epic' or 'action cue' I want to reccommend studying some more counterpoint. But I am too polite, hehe, and ... 'go learn your harmony and counterpoint' sounds much more academic than my attitude is :roll: .
> 
> ...
> 
> Hannes


I'm learning as fast as I can... :wink: 

Currently reading Tchaikovsky's Guide to the Practical Study of Harmony and I have books on counterpoint by both Fux and Bach... I don't have a classical background unfortunately!


----------



## José Herring (Nov 8, 2006)

bluejay @ Wed Nov 08 said:


> Hannes_F @ Tue Nov 07 said:
> 
> 
> > ...when somebody presents his first 'epic' or 'action cue' I want to reccommend studying some more counterpoint. But I am too polite, hehe, and ... 'go learn your harmony and counterpoint' sounds much more academic than my attitude is :roll: .
> ...


ò”   I‡”   I‡”   I‡”   I‡”   I‡”   I‡”   I‡”   I‡”   I‡”   I‡”   I‡”   I‡ ”   I‡!”   I‡"”   I‡#”   I‡$”   I‡%”   I‡&”   I‡'”   I‡(”   I‡)”   I‡*”   I‡+”   I‡,”   I‡-”   I‡.”   I‡/”   I‡0”   I‡1”   I‡2”   I‡3”   I‡4”   I‡5”   I‡6”   I‡7”   I‡8”   I‡9”   I‡:”


----------



## bluejay (Nov 8, 2006)

Thank you Jose. I have also spent some time reading books on orchestration but I need to re-read them at least a few more times. It appears to be an enormous subject.

At the moment I'm going through exercises in the Tchaikovsky book on 4-part harmonic (homophonic?) writing.

I'm also spending some time going through scores which I've found to be really useful. I've got some of the John Williams signature series, some Howard Shore Lord of the Rings and then The Planets' Suite by Holst, Nutcracker and Swan Lake by Tchaikovsky, and The Rite of Spring by Stravinsky.

Would you (or anyone else here) have any recommendations for other scores I might want to study?


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 8, 2006)

bluejay @ Wed Nov 08 said:


> Would you (or anyone else here) have any recommendations for other scores I might want to study?


The Firebird is available from Dover for less than $20. It's a bit simpler in rhythm and harmony than Rite of Spring, but its use of instruments is still phenominal, so I feel that it's a bit easier to study, orchestration-wise. 

A year or two ago I bought the score and mocked-up Lullaby of the Firebird. As I discovered each layer of orchestration tricks, I was grinning from ear to ear.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Nov 8, 2006)

Patrick de Caumette @ Tue Nov 07 said:


> I've been working on my counterpoint lately and I am currently reading Fux's works and particularly his "Gradus ad Parnassum"
> 
> I was curious about your opinions about the relevance of this title in the begining of the 21st century. Obviously most rules for strict counterpoint still stand but have we broken new ground since?



Yes. And here's one of these answers that some won't like because it comes across I'm pushing a product. See Counterpoint by Fux by guess who:

http://www.truespec.com/counterpoint-by-fux-p-266.html

Fux is totally valid for today because it's the only counterpoint method teaching the individual:

1. How to write in each mode
2. How to improvise in each mode
3. How to reharmonize in each mode

This is not as clearly seen in the Alfred Mann translation because he maintains the Scocratic dialog method of teaching.

However, I paid for a brand new translation of the whole work (Mizler's German translatin from Latin) AND recently had every single example in the book re-engraved. There are hundreds of examples taking the student into imitation, fugue, and multi-voice writing. 

When it's done, it will be THE most complete course on counterpoint available today.

Fux's principles are primarily for root and third in the bass, with the fifth in the bass entering in three-part counterpoint. Dissonances are handled differently but that can be handled with an addendum.

With Fux you have the cross over for jazz to classical and vice versa.

Now, I do encourage people who get it, to also get the Goetschius 18th Century Elementary Cpt to complement it. 

But yes, totally valid. And worth the time. I've been putting myself through it and I'm in 3-part counterpoint now. Every moment, every exercise has been worth it.

Peter


----------



## Peter Alexander (Nov 8, 2006)

Patrick de Caumette @ Tue Nov 07 said:


> All good, relevant points indeed.
> 
> Fux's text having had such an important influence on composers such as Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven (sorry if I associated compostion and counterpoint in the same sentence :smile: )



They SHOULD be in the same sentence.




> it must be to the benefit of the contemporary composer to know those rules and guidelines in order to adequately emulate those masters' works on occasion (read "when hired to write in that genre")



If you learn them as principles, they're totally transferable. Only when you teach and learn them as didactic life or death rules can you not use them effectively in any kind of composition.

Good examples are Ravel's use of counterpoint in Mother Goose Suite (oops, there's that plug again for another book to help composers...I need to start writing cook books) where with jazz harmony the counterpoint produces musical magic.



> Obvously, the knowledge of Flux's counterpoint principles alone would not be enough to write in the style of Beethoven but would ensure that counterpoint for the piece remains within context...



It wasn't enough for Beethoven to write in the style of Beethoven, but he still studied out of the original as did Haydn, Mozart and others.

And consider this - everyone studied out of the same book but no one sounded like it in their music. How curiously musical!


----------



## Peter Alexander (Nov 8, 2006)

charles @ Tue Nov 07 said:


> > Counterpoint must be seperated from composition, if the ideal and practical truth of both are to come into their own right.
> >
> > ... The discipline of counterpoint is not meant to teach a specifice style of composition, but to serve to lead the ear for the first time into the endless sphere of original problems in music. The ear must be led to distinguish the characteristics of the intervals of music... and must learn to understand situations in which two, three or four voices are brought together.
> >
> ...



I have Schenker's two volume work on counterpoint. Fooey on Schenker. It's just more academic fal-de-rah.


----------



## charles (Nov 8, 2006)

Peter Alexander @ Wed Nov 08 said:


> charles @ Tue Nov 07 said:
> 
> 
> > > Counterpoint must be seperated from composition, if the ideal and practical truth of both are to come into their own right.
> ...



Peter, lets go into this with some depth, I don’t think its fair of you to dismiss the complete paragraph of my quote by isolating one line and changing the focus.

First I agree with you, Fux is still very relevant, because the essence of counterpoint is to train the ear and mind to think in horizontal motion, and to build fluent melodic lines, and much of the history of Western Music was in fact horizontal, and I believe this is the reason why many from the more popular traditions such as some genres of jazz, do not automatically tune into Fux, the Vertical conception, has trained their ear in the opposite direction, not necessarily a bad thing, but if you intend to cross over to the horizontal conception it takes a bit or re-orientation.

Only a small amount of reflection will tell you, that consecutive fifths and octaves destroy the integrity and independence of the melodic parts in horizontal motion.
Now is this bad or good? It is neither, and that is where Schenker is spot on in my opinion.(with modification)

Obviously in Fux’s day Debussy would of sounded, well, to say the least wrong, but there is no contradiction between Debussy’s use of parallel fifths and Fux in our own day for example.
*The study of Counterpoint is to train the ear, which is not the same as Composing*;composition is the translation of sounds that have germinated in the composers mind and to realize those sounds on to the printed page for other musicians to interpret. If a composers imagination and spirit hears lines in parallel fifths well the rules of Fux need not get in the way at all, but this does not in any way invalidate Fux.
*And this is important, because clarity of melodic -horizontal motion may not have the same musical importance or significance for us as it did for Fux.*
But this does not invalidate the concept of creating clarity in Melodic lines, which is still a valid pursuit.

Obviously species counterpoint is very effective, by gradually increasing the density of musical thought; the student learns to manipulate greater complexity in the melodic lines and the horizontal motion of those lines, whether or not, these skills make their way into the mind of the composer and find expression in his compositions is another thing, but this is not solely tied to the study of counterpoint, there are other considerations.

So counterpoint is not composition, it is the training of the ear. That is the reason for its existence. Does counterpoint exist in the works of the Masters? Well obviously yes, or what would be the point!!!

But what appears to be a contradiction is not, because the appearance of counterpoint in the work of the masters only confirms that the musical thought process’s of the tradition has entered their consciousness.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 8, 2006)

Peter Alexander @ Wed Nov 08 said:


> Yes. And here's one of these answers that some won't like because it comes across I'm pushing a product. See Counterpoint by Fux by guess who:
> 
> http://www.truespec.com/counterpoint-by-fux-p-266.html
> 
> ...



Hi Peter,

taking a look at your table of content, it appears that you elaborated quite a bit away from the Fux text: ie: (Lesson 2- Note value-...Standard Rock pattern ! )

Would you mind sharing with us how you went about preserving Fux's core concepts and what it is you feel that your version will offer that is not present in the original text.

Personally, I enjoy the Socratic dialog method of teaching: it makes for a fun read...


----------



## Peter Alexander (Nov 9, 2006)

Pat, Charles - I'm in a recording session for most of today. And my wedding anniversary is tomorrow. So if I don't give you detailed responses before Friday, I'm not ignoring you.

Note to Charles - I'm not dismissing your paragraph. I'm dismissing Schenker's concept that counterpoint isn't compositional instruction.

When you start traditional music school, you learn chorale writing in allegedly the style of Bach. But what's 4-part chorale writing? 4-part counterpoint taught in a formulized mathematical manner.

When academically do most study counterpoint? The Junior semester. 

So look at the contradiction. I'm being made to learn a dry, mathematically driven version of four-part counterpoint in my Freshman semester, but I can't be started with "traditional" counterpoint until my Junior year because the Associations of Schools and Colleges say that's advanced.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 9, 2006)

Peter for me I had the exact opposite experience. I was taught Fux counterpoint starting my Freshman year at the University of Arizona. To me that was dry and formulaic with rules up the wazoo. I remember my first lessons. No dissonance in two part counterpoint. You have to start on an open 4th or 5th or 8va. No parallel 4ths or 5ths or octaves because those sound "ugly" yet pretty sounding parallel 3rds and 6ths where ok except if you do it too much it gets boring so you want to throw in some contrary motion as much as possible. All leaps greater than a 3rd must be resolved downward by step, ect. blah.

I didn't study choral writing until I was at Juilliard as a sophomore and I found choral writing to have a lot of flexibility by comparison. And also I did look up many years later the counterpoint books actually written by Bach and found that he rocked. His main idea was that you could never really fully understand how to write counterpoint in 2 parts or 3 parts until you fully understood how to write 4 part choral style harmony because 2 and 3 parts are just a boiling down of 4 part harmony. I found that very useful in understanding orchestra composition as well as jazz/rock and pop.

I think comparing the music of Palestrina to the music of Bach is a good idea. Palestrina using mostly Fux style counterpoint has compositions that pay little attention to the underlying harmony and movement in favor of an almost cacophony of sound brought about by almost too much independent movement. I personally like it though. Bach's music is supremely organized by comparison and though those fugues of his are as complicated as music has ever gotten there's always a sense of order in the harmony and progression of line built up on a solid chordal foundation. In my opinion it's the reason why we still hear Bach almost everywhere today and why Palestrina is all but forgotten.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 9, 2006)

Peter Alexander @ Thu Nov 09 said:


> Pat, Charles - I'm in a recording session for most of today. And my wedding anniversary is tomorrow. So if I don't give you detailed responses before Friday, I'm not ignoring you.



Happy anniversary Peter!

Time to get that Champagne bottle out of the fridge!


----------



## Roland Mac (Nov 13, 2006)

I think Fux is worth doing. The book is a good intro, but many of the lesser rules are redundant now. The main ones are still relevant though.

Also, think about looking at Bach's Inventions and his choral harmonisations. The Inventions are a GREAT way to learn about motives and how they can be manipulated and developed during a composition - something thats REALLY important for film work it seems.

It might also be work checking out some of Chopin's music too. His style could be very polyphonic at times. He loved Bach and respected his work way more so than his contemparies. So that might be a cool way to see how the strict 'rules' had developed from the Baroque onward.

RM


----------

