# How important is counterpoint?



## Voider (May 2, 2017)

Hey! This might be a noobish question but I just finished to learn the basics of music theory (harmonies) and I am thinking about buying a book to learn about counterpoint.

How essential is it to know about it, and is it kind of the "main composing technique" used nowadays?
Are there other common techniques with a specific name? (So I can look up for books)
And last but not least: Is it too early to learn about the counterpoint, should I first gather more experience with the basics, or is it okay to head straight into this new topic?

I just want to expand my knowledge from here and learn more about writing and composing melodies and pieces, but I am not sure where to go next.

Thank you in advance


----------



## Jaap (May 2, 2017)

Well it never huts to know it and if you want to expand your skillset to a maximum capacity I would for sure read up upon it to be honest. If you learned the basic harmony you might want to check out Gradus ad Parnassum from Josheph Fux. It is a classic book but teaches you a nice basis from which you can expand. Another book (which I would recommend for after reading some basics about counterpoint) is Modal and Tonal Counterpoint from Harold Owen.


----------



## JohnG (May 2, 2017)

It is always fine to learn more about music. If you like listening to Buxtehude or Bach (or most of the guys from yesteryear) you might find it gratifying. I love those guys so I like knowing a bit about it.

If, by contrast, your question is, "to write music for games and media, is it _necessary_ to learn counterpoint?" I would say "no." For one thing, counterpoint emphasizes modulation, which I think to most people nowadays smacks of "old-fashioned."


----------



## CT (May 2, 2017)

Even if you're only ever going to write block chords for low brass, why not learn a bit of counterpoint?


----------



## Voider (May 2, 2017)

Thank you so far for your replies! Though I also think that it can never harm to know as much as possible, this may not be the best next step for me then. I anyway ordered a book to my local bookstore and will have a look into it tomorrow.

So nowadays everyone is just doing their own thing? After learning the basics, there is no common theme / composing technique that is a must learn? I would be fine with finding my own way. But maybe there is something that is as essential as the basics that would be the next logical step, that's why I am asking.


----------



## JohnG (May 2, 2017)

Voider said:


> the next logical step



I understand what you mean; there are so many directions to take your music. Perhaps you could share where you want your next logical step to take you? Are you a performer already -- have you mastered an instrument? Do you want to write songs, score, symphonies?


----------



## Jaap (May 2, 2017)

Voider said:


> Thank you so far for your replies! At it seems counterpoint can be useful in different genres, but may be more important for classical orchestra instead of modern film, game and media music. Though I also think that it can never harm to know as much as possible, this may not be the best next step for me then. I anyway ordered a book to my local bookstore and will have a look into it tomorrow.
> 
> So nowadays everyone is just doing their own thing? After learning the basics, there is no common theme / composing technique that is a must learn? I would be fine with finding my own way. But maybe there is something that is as essential as the basics that would be the next logical step, that's why I am asking.



Well even for film, game and media music it can be very handy. It comes a bit down to the point to discover who you are as composer. If you feel you need to express yourself more and need more compositional tools for that, then by all means dive into it. Also in that line of field it might give you something extra, a personal sound and if you land a job for example and it is requested to write some advanced music, then you don't have to stress out and have those skills at the ready.


----------



## Replicant (May 2, 2017)

It's not essential to write contrapuntal music like Bach.

However, it IS essential to understand polyphonic concepts. I.e., voice leading.

As such, studying it is worthwhile even if you don't really master it or ever plan on composing a fugue.


----------



## Voider (May 2, 2017)

JohnG said:


> I understand what you mean; there are so many directions to take your music. Perhaps you could share where you want your next logical step to take you? Are you a performer already -- have you mastered an instrument? Do you want to write songs, score, symphonies?



I haven't mastered an instrument yet, but I am still learning to play piano. But what I am good at now is sounddesign, it's the thing I've practiced most yet. I create almost all my patches I use to compose by myself from scratch on my synth. I am very interested in the hybrid scoring genre and I love scifi/cyberpunk themed music, but also those orchestral pieces for games like Final Fantasy or Zelda. But I definitely want to write scores/soundtracks, trailer music and this kind of stuff.

This is where I am at the moment (skill level wise), the first one is just a short demo of something I would imagine as intro and the second one still a prototype more like a sketch yet I am writing on:


----------



## Living Fossil (May 2, 2017)

The quintessence of counterpoint is developing the ability to set different (melodic) lines in relation to each other and generate a new quality out of the flow of the tensions.

Despite the fact that it's usually taught with exercices that one can solve like a sudoku, mastering counterpoint is in fact developing the inner hearing.

For people who are afraid of counterpoint because they associate fugues etc. with counterpoint i often recommend to have a look at the voicings in the music of Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert (etc.).
Try to sing some middle voices while keeping in mind the leading melody. Or have a look at when and how the patterns change. Or extract the harmonic notes of broken chord patterns ("Alberti basses and similar) and look what they are doing.
That's a huge source of knowledge and inspiration which one can study for free.


----------



## Saxer (May 2, 2017)

Classical counterpoint isn't asked often (up to now I needed it twice in my life for commercial spots).

But there's one thing I want to mention.
I'm in my mid 50s and nearly nothing is as it was when I was starting. Not stylistic, not technically, not in business, not in sound, not in needed skills. Everything is changing all the time. So you can't know what you will need. Probably completely different things that we all expect. One thing is for sure: you will need the ability to learn and absorb new styles. So learning counterpoint might just be the right training for that. Who knows?


----------



## JohnG (May 2, 2017)

Voider said:


> I create almost all my patches I use to compose by myself from scratch on my synth.



Based on what I'm hearing in your two tracks, actually, I DO think you would enjoy learning at least a bit of counterpoint. I don't mean to suggest that any musician should avoid it, but given what you are into, I would guess you'd like it.

And the other points people have made are also of course very reasonable. One learns a lot from counterpoint.

But also from Mozart who, while also a consummate master of counterpoint, broke a lot of rules.

I liked your demos, by the way and congrats on making your own patches.

john


----------



## gyprock (May 2, 2017)

Two part counterpoint (just the basics) can be very useful if you're composing a melody and a chord progression and something's just not right. Take a look at what the melody and chord root is doing when going from one chord to the next. If they are 6ths and 3rds moving between each other I doubt that this will be problematic. If they are octaves or 5ths moving in parallel you might have a problem. Likewise if you approach a 5th or octave from a 3rd or 6th in similar motion you might have a problem. Take a look at any great jazz ballad and do the analysis with the outer voices. Or any good pop song. For the time being, forget about what's going on in the inner voices.

I'd recommend the counterpoint course on scoreclub.net. This course really helped me understand the essence of counterpoint in a more modern context.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 2, 2017)

John wrote:



> For one thing, counterpoint emphasizes modulation, which I think to most people nowadays smacks of "old-fashioned."



Do you mean traditional counterpoint, or just using multiple independent lines?

If you mean the latter, I hope you're wrong, because it would be pretty sad! There's nothing wrong with triggered assemblage, but comparing it to the great works... no.

Of course, there's counterpoint when a guitar and bass play ostinatos together. But I don't think that's what we're talking about.


----------



## JohnG (May 2, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Do you mean traditional counterpoint



Yes. The way I learned counterpoint was Fux / Bach etc. When people talk about courses in counterpoint, I assume that's what they are talking about.

I have heard over the years a lot of people insist that "learning counterpoint is good for..." like learning Latin is good for learning Italian. Which it is, or -- you can just learn Italian.

I don't think you have to learn species counterpoint to understand voice leading or contrary motion, that's all. I still love counterpoint, but learning it "properly" is very time-consuming and I'd rather learn the quick-and-dirty way.

So those arguing in favour of counterpoint I get what you mean but I think @gyprock 's point about "in a more modern context" is a good idea. (I don't know that course to which he's alluding, but I like the sentiment).


----------



## jonnybutter (May 2, 2017)

It's not a waste of time at all to learn some counterpoint. It's an essential musical _concept_, even if you don't have to learn to write actual Bach-type counterpoint. But if you like music, I'd do some serious listening to some great Bach (or other Baroque) if I were you. It sounds more 'modern' harmonically than some music that came after it (e.g. 'classical'). Beethoven was innovative in many ways, but I don't know that he broke much ground harmonically - Bach was there first most of the time. Great modernist composers, like Webern, were obsessed with Bach, and for good reason.

I agree with Saxer, too. Learn as much as you can. You can't predict how it might be directly 'useful' (if at all), but...that's the way education is I guess


----------



## Paul T McGraw (May 3, 2017)

gyprock said:


> Two part counterpoint (just the basics) can be very useful if you're composing a melody and a chord progression and something's just not right. Take a look at what the melody and chord root is doing when going from one chord to the next. If they are 6ths and 3rds moving between each other I doubt that this will be problematic. If they are octaves or 5ths moving in parallel you might have a problem. Likewise if you approach a 5th or octave from a 3rd or 6th in similar motion you might have a problem. Take a look at any great jazz ballad and do the analysis with the outer voices. Or any good pop song. For the time being, forget about what's going on in the inner voices.
> 
> I'd recommend the counterpoint course on scoreclub.net. This course really helped me understand the essence of counterpoint in a more modern context.



+1 for the Scoreclub.net course.


----------



## Voider (May 3, 2017)

JohnG said:


> I liked your demos, by the way and congrats on making your own patches.



Thank you  

@Topic, I've had a look today into the counterpoint book I ordered at the local bookstore and I think it is yet too early for me. It though was a 450 pages heavy and really in depth book, but after reading through the first pages I felt that I should gather some more experience with the basics first, find my own way and conclusions and then move further to in depth techniques. But it is definitely a very interesting field! Thank you all for your other recommendations of courses or books, I will check them out


----------



## Rowy (May 4, 2017)

If you've studied harmony, you do not have to study counterpoint. Although I must admit that the students who studied vocal counterpoint (Fux) were better at voice leading than the ones who didn't.

About Fux, there is a book about vocal counterpoint that is easier to understand and it is just as good (some say even better). It is _Counterpoint: The polyphonic vocal style of the sixteenth century_ by Knud Jeppesen. You can download it for free: https://ia801707.us.archive.org/2/items/counterpointpoly00jepp/counterpointpoly00jepp.pdf


----------



## Living Fossil (May 4, 2017)

Rowy said:


> If you've studied harmony, you do not have to study counterpoint.



I have to disagree 
I think, specially for people who have knowldege of harmony, it's crucial to get the sense for voice leading developped.
It's a huge difference, if you write a progression just as a "functional" sequence. 
Or if the chords seem to be the result of the voices.
One is music, the other is texture.


----------



## Rowy (May 4, 2017)

Living Fossil said:


> I have to disagree
> I think, specially for people who have knowldege of harmony, it's crucial to get the sense for voice leading developped.
> It's a huge difference, if you write a progression just as a "functional" sequence.
> Or if the chords seem to be the result of the voices.
> One is music, the other is texture.



Well, yes, a progression should be more than just a sequence. But voice leading is part of harmony. Well, at least that's the way I learned it and how I taught harmony to my pupils.

Vocal counterpoint improves voice leading, but as a tool to learn to write polyphony, it is not that important.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 4, 2017)

@Rowy: Voice leading as it's part in harmony is by far not enough. 
It's a simple set of rules. Music requires more. If you teach students e.g. writing chorals in the Bach style, while keeping an eye on the used lines, then of course it's a step in the right direction.
But it's a misconception to think of "counterpoint" only in the often used sense of imitation etc.. 
Schubert - for example - was a master of counterpoint. The way he manages strange modulations to sound natural through the use of melodic lines is simply amazing. That's one of the reasons why the same harmonic textures can either create great music or just mediocre textures...


----------



## Leon Willett (May 4, 2017)

The way I teach counterpoint (which is different to the traditional method, which in my opinion leaves the student at a bit of a loss as to how to use counterpoint in their own music), is that counterpoint is simply: *being good at having more than one important thing going on at once*. 

For example, say you make a moment of music that has two things going on. A pad, and a melody over the top. Two things. But here there is only one important thing (the melody). The pad is a background thing. I guess "important" is the wrong word, but only the melody is grabbing your attention, you get what I mean  

If you were to add another melody to this music, *now* we're talking counterpoint. 

So, if you want to be able to have more than one important thing going on, counterpoint is the thing to study. 

I dislike the traditional species counterpoint (which I studied very deeply!), because it doesn't quite get you achieving what you really want, as stated above, which is to get good at multiple "things" going on, each important. So I teach it differently


----------



## Prockamanisc (May 4, 2017)

how emportint iz lerning how tu spel?


----------



## Rowy (May 4, 2017)

Living Fossil said:


> @Rowy: Voice leading as it's part in harmony is by far not enough.



The way I taught (I'm retired now) harmony was certainly sufficient. I had my pupils study chorales. And I wrote a tutorial on voice leading based on vocal counterpoint. They had to study that too. Only when they managed to write music (music, not an exercise) to classical standards, I gave it a rest. That almost never happened 

When someone wanted to study vocal counterpoint I let him. But I preferred instrumental counterpoint. You can use that in almost any style. Voice leading, that they already knew. But vocal counterpoint? Renaissance music? We're so used to major and minor, that so called modal compositions usually end up in major or in minor.

But if you're interested, you can download a thousand modal pieces, even in modulated keys, from here:

http://www.classical-sheet-music.eu/free-sheet-music-1000 Compositions-Organ-page-1

They were compiled by a priest, possibly. Or a monk. I guess he had some time on his hands. And I put them up there.


----------



## Rowy (May 4, 2017)

Prockamanisc said:


> how emportint iz lerning how tu spel?



Some of us aren't native English speakers. Like ze Germans and ze Dutch. BUT IF WE THINK YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND US, WE JUST TALK LOUDER


----------



## Rctec (May 4, 2017)

Living Fossil said:


> The quintessence of counterpoint is developing the ability to set different (melodic) lines in relation to each other and generate a new quality out of the flow of the tensions.
> 
> Despite the fact that it's usually taught with exercices that one can solve like a sudoku, mastering counterpoint is in fact developing the inner hearing.
> 
> ...


Beautifully stated...


----------



## Kyle Preston (May 4, 2017)

JohnG said:


> It is always fine to learn more about music. If you like listening to Buxtehude or Bach (or most of the guys from yesteryear) you might find it gratifying. I love those guys so I like knowing a bit about it.
> 
> If, by contrast, your question is, "to write music for games and media, is it _necessary_ to learn counterpoint?" I would say "no." For one thing, counterpoint emphasizes modulation, which I think to most people nowadays smacks of "old-fashioned."



Yeah, this seems to be part of the struggle now (for me at least); recycling classic theory technique in a modern context. I'm a counterpoint noob, still trying to absorb the method till it feels instinctual. Need to see if Rick Beato has a counterpoint video on YT somewhere... He's good at explaining these things.


----------



## sinkd (May 4, 2017)

Living Fossil said:


> I have to disagree
> I think, specially for people who have knowldege of harmony, it's crucial to get the sense for voice leading developped.
> It's a huge difference, if you write a progression just as a "functional" sequence.
> Or if the chords seem to be the result of the voices.
> One is music, the other is texture.


I have to agree with your disagreement.


----------



## sinkd (May 4, 2017)

16th century (modal) counterpoint, aka "Fux" or "Species" counterpoint is not about learning to write modal (pre-baroque) music. Mozart studied species counterpoint later with Martini when he had already mastered what we call good "voice-leading" and "chord progression." Writing polyphonic counterpoint, ultimately with staggered voice entrances, will enhance your abilities as a composer without question. It teaches you about the rhythms of consonance and dissonance and more elaborate figurations in melody against another line. Species counterpoint, in some pedagogies, is actually foundational to harmony and voice leading. I have taught it that way using texts like Counterpoint in Composition (Salzer/Schacter) or the Aldwell Schacter book. Counterpoint was first. Melody, chords, and harmony as a compositional trifecta is relatively recent by comparison.


----------



## JohnG (May 4, 2017)

Well, it depends on what one's goals are. I love all that stuff; I perform it every week. But telling us about Mozart's interest in and ability to write a fugue is, I'm afraid, not very persuasive. I knew that already, for starters, and he died a very long time ago, in an era when people wore wigs. And nobody here as far as I know is Mozart, or trying to emulate him.

I like counterpoint myself, but not everyone is heading that direction, that's all. 

It's true that you learn a lot from it, but you learn a lot from playing covers of the Beatles songs too, or musical theatre tunes, or learning to program a synth, or falling in love. Everything you learn, every experience you have in some way, to some extent, can inform your creative work. 

Counterpoint is no doubt an excellent discipline and if you really "get it," can do great things for your understanding. That said, I have met plenty of pedantic musicians whose own music is dull and unpopular who, nevertheless, know a lot about counterpoint. So it is not a magic bullet.

I am not attacking anyone's music here -- I haven't even heard it, so please don't take this personally.

Sometimes I fear that people who study music (myself included) waste energy thinking about what they "should" be doing with technique, rather than really listening and being open to what makes sense next in a piece. And I think there is plenty of evidence that this is a risk.

Still, I really love Buxtehude.


----------



## CT (May 4, 2017)

I second the idea that while a ton of technique is great, it can also potentially be a hazard; anyone who is trying to "compose by theory" is absolutely shooting themself in the foot... and I've seen more than a few people who approach it all that way. 

Music theory is a set of principles abstracted from music that already exists. Helpful, interesting, and beneficial for an overall "fluency." But if you have nothing to say, no musical imagination or instinct, all the theory in the world will get you nothing more than a completed homework assignment. It would probably get a good grade, though. Another way of looking at it: you could be the world's leading linguist and still write a shitty book.

I also would like to second the idea that Buxtehude is bitchin'.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 5, 2017)

To me it's like asking how important the letters B, C, E, H, K, M, N, O, and P are.

It makes no sense. Music can be unison, concerted, it can have independent lines... I mean, yeah, there are techniques like fugues in traditional counterpoint that are pretty specific, and you're not going to write Bernard Herrmann's "going up the stairs" cue in Psycho every day (whether or not you write underscore).

But counterpoint in general is an integral part of the language.


----------



## Voider (May 5, 2017)

I will for sure dive into it when I've made some progress with the basics and especially got more experience with the 7 modes.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 5, 2017)

I predict you'll find the modes pretty easy. Just play all white notes from C to C, D to D, etc.


----------



## Voider (May 5, 2017)

Aren't the modes separate systems with their own allocation of half- and whole tone steps that can be set up from any key? Like D Dorian mode from E would be: E-F#-G-A-H-C#-D.


----------



## JohnG (May 5, 2017)

@Voider yes they are, but I think Nick was being funny. He's like that.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 5, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Sometimes I fear that people who study music (myself included) waste energy thinking about what they "should" be doing with technique, rather than really listening and being open to what makes sense next in a piece. And I think there is plenty of evidence that this is a risk.
> 
> Still, I really love Buxtehude.



And rightly so imo! I recommend, before any orchestration or even theory book, to read maestro Copland's "What to Listen for in Music". I learned so much when I read that book, plus listening to the Appalachian while reading is exquisite!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 5, 2017)

Yeah I was 3/4 kidding, but just to be a niedermeyer about the words: D dorian is all the white notes from D-D!

E dorian is the one that uses the D major key signature. You're right to break down the scale - any scale - to its sequence of whole and half steps, but if you want someone to play the notes you wrote above, tell them E dorian.

Only don't tell them to play an H outside of Europe, tell them B.


----------



## Voider (May 5, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Only don't tell them to play an H outside of Europe, tell them B.



lol I didn't notice I was writing h, usually I got used to say b even here in germany (which led to confusion in a german piano forum).  The habit always changes depending on what the last sources I practiced with were from.


----------



## Smikes77 (May 5, 2017)

It depends what you're a slave to. Melody? Theory? Harmony? Emotion (obviously subjective)?

You make the choice.


----------



## DrJazz9781 (May 5, 2017)

As to Saxer's comment that he had only used counterpoint twice on commercial projects. I really wonder how many he has done. Counterpoint/voiceleading is used when writing 2 or more parts on any complexity.


----------



## JohnG (May 5, 2017)

Normally, I'd want to know something about someone's music before writing something condescending like that.


----------



## Deleted member 422019 (May 5, 2017)

Voider said:


> Hey! This might be a noobish question but I just finished to learn the basics of music theory (harmonies) and I am thinking about buying a book to learn about counterpoint.
> 
> How essential is it to know about it, and is it kind of the "main composing technique" used nowadays?
> Are there other common techniques with a specific name? (So I can look up for books)
> ...



It's definitely essential, that is _*if*_ it genuinely interests you. One person on here said that counterpoint is useful if you are involved with modulation, but, he said, "modulation is old-fashioned", so, this line of thinking goes, if you're not into modulation, counterpoint is not so useful. I don't agree. First of all, much of modern contrapuntal music is not modulatory at all, i.e. Steve Reich's minimalism or Samuel Barber's piano concerto, or works by Schoenberg, Debussy and Shostakovitch. Chromatic and atonal counterpoint can be decidedly non-modulatory. Secondly, modulation itself is not old-fashioned. It depends on _*how*_ it's done, not simply that it is done.

Most importantly though, the study of counterpoint teaches us to listen deeply to inner voices, to not think of music as merely melody and bass line, or melody and harmony, but rather a more holistic approach that includes voices of equal distribution and weight. It sharpens listening skills, expands the creative imagination by offering textural options and sensitizes the composer to intervallic tensions and other important details, including rhythmic syncopation and the ever-changing relationship between tension and relaxation and the material in between.

So, yeah, study counterpoint _if you really want to_. All the masters studied it and future masters will continue to study it. Most students study it after studying harmony for a year or two, but I don't think that order is critical. It became tradition because chord progressions are more natural to us, we often think in chords rather than lines, or melodic threads as I like to say. Start with tonal counterpoint, which is essentially the music of J.S. Bach and the relationship between the major-minor tonal system and contrapuntal technique. Modal counterpoint is also very useful, the rules are arcane and not to be taken too seriously, but the practice of writing in such a constricted style can really help hone in on writing for choirs and the human voice. Finally, 20th century counterpoint, which is essentially chromaticism, serial atonality and set theory, is also very useful, as it will help you learn how to write good melodic inner voices while not being overly concerned about harmonic progression or harmonic rhythm. 

The thing is, you can study counterpoint and still write any kind of music you damn well want to write. Anybody who tells you otherwise is misguided. If after you study it, your heart is in rock n' roll or electronica or hip-hop, then write rock n' roll, electronica or hip-hop. Because you studied counterpoint, you'll probably do it better than if you hadn't.


Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 5, 2017)

Well said Jerry. 
I think JohnG made a point earlier about listening rather than slaving to the technique. If you get the balance right, any technique can be springboard and support for the imagination. Sadly though, you don't find out what it can do for you until you learn it.


----------



## Saxer (May 5, 2017)

DrJazz9781 said:


> As to Saxer's comment that he had only used counterpoint twice on commercial projects. I really wonder how many he has done. Counterpoint/voiceleading is used when writing 2 or more parts on any complexity.


I was talking about 'classical' counterpoint (dux, comes, all the 'forbidden' jumps in that style etc.)
Independent voice leading is daily soap.


----------



## ctsai89 (May 6, 2017)

I don't think counterpoint is really "required". But it's hard to not notice a lot of interesting masterpieces of music out there (I'm not only talking about classical, but edm/rock/etc) that contain qualities of counterpoints. Music without (true/quasi)counterpoint: sure it can be beautiful. But if you add the counterpoint in (if done correctly), you're increasing the chance of it being a 10/10 piece as opposed to it without. imho.


----------



## DervishCapkiner (May 6, 2017)

Voider said:


> Hey! This might be a noobish question but I just finished to learn the basics of music theory (harmonies) and I am thinking about buying a book to learn about counterpoint.
> 
> How essential is it to know about it, and is it kind of the "main composing technique" used nowadays?
> Are there other common techniques with a specific name? (So I can look up for books)
> ...




Everyone has great advice here and whether you learn counterpoint or not perhaps you've came to the understanding that the point is to learn to voice lead better which very basically speaking means your melody lines are easy to sing and to counter your melody with a second or third melody. 
However...........I think the important part to remember here is that you must either learn this on the piano or in my own humble opinion just try to properly learn the piano ( or really how to voice chords) because unless you already have amazing relative pitch ( which you won't at this point as part of relative pitch is hearing chord inversions etc) then learning counterpoint on a piece of paper in theory without ear training which is the real tool in composing, is well...pointless in my opinion. What im trying to say is be hands on, learn to voice chords and train your ears and you will never regret this method of musical training.


----------



## JohnG (May 6, 2017)

jsg said:


> One person on here said that counterpoint is useful if you are involved with modulation, but, he said, "modulation is old-fashioned", so, this line of thinking goes, if you're not into modulation, counterpoint is not so useful. I don't agree



Jerry -- that is not at all what I said or implied. Just goofy.


----------



## JohnG (May 6, 2017)

Every time this topic has come up on v.i. control – this topic and any other topic that is beloved in the world of academe – the same pattern repeats.

1. Someone (The Teacher) tells us about the glories of [technique x]

2. Someone else (The Questioner) questions the merits of spending lots of time on [technique x]

3. The Teacher(s) loftily inform The Questioner that, “if only you knew what _I_ know, your pitiful ignorance would fall away, and you could be as great a musician as I.”

Ok.

I have studied counterpoint in school, with teachers, on my own, and at three different universities. I sing it every week in a choir. I am aware of, and relish, its beauty, power, and intricacies.

However.

Every academic composer starts off getting fed counterpoint and a lot of other “technique.” From this, in general, we get – modern academic music. Music that, when played even for a symphony audience that _likes_ counterpoint and all that, nevertheless has to be programmed in the first half of the evening or half the audience flees the hall at intermission.

Why?

Maybe because in the hands of too many modern composers (John Adams and a number of others being notable exceptions), such music often feels leaden and tiresome. It _reeks_ of technique, of condescension, of a haughty disdain for the features that most people, even most musicians, enjoy about music. A tune. An exciting or engaging rhythm. Harmony that is recognisable as such. Drama. An emotional or intellectual journey.

By contrast, let’s take a look at composers whose music people actually enjoy:

*Hans Zimmer*: played in pop bands, likes all kinds of music including stuff that people willingly dance to, put on for pleasure, etc. _without being instructed to do so._

*James Newton Howard*: Perfect pitch, consummate piano player and student of orchestral technique, who famously memorized Elton John’s entire repertoire in a week or two to join his tour. Uses techniques ranging from show tunes to Wagner (check out the last cues in “King Kong”) to the _avant garde_ in his compositions. Writes music people voluntarily buy.

*James Horner* (RIP): Studied at the Royal Academy of Music but, nevertheless, wrote music that millions of people bought and enjoyed.

*Jerry Goldsmith*: Famously used _avant garde_ techniques in “Planet of the Apes,” but nevertheless wrote simple melodies in films like “Rudy” when he thought the story called for it.

*Tom Newman*: Knows it all, and knows enough not to inflict technique on his audience except _as appropriate._ Has written elaborately intellectual music in some instances, heart-breaking, nostalgic string melodies for “The Road to Perdition,” and lush, period-piece orchestral music for “The Good German.”

*John Adams*: Virtuoso clarinet player. Left academic music in the 1970s because he found it stilted and stale, moved to the Bay Area and started writing and performing alternative, odd pieces. Amalgamated his earlier studies, the alternative stuff, and just about everything else (folk tunes, jazz, a healthy dose of sarcasm) into his music and is today probably the most popular concert composer alive.

So please – I am not discouraging any knowledge of music. I have been studying it for decades and will until I drop. However, when I read others implying that “you can’t be a _proper_ composer without mastering this or that technique,” I get alarmed.

I get alarmed that some young person who loves music will have that enthusiasm dulled by slogging through technique that was fresh – 200 years ago, or more. Even in his own lifetime, people thought the great JS Bach was old-fashioned.

Study counterpoint if you hear the B-minor Mass and fall in love with it. Or, study the electric guitar – a dazzling invention if there ever was one – and work out how to make it do some of the million things it can do superbly. Or study vocal music, or club music.

Study what interests you, and maybe you’ll keep going. Eventually, technique is important, but *nothing is important as the impulse to keep at your music.* Counterpoint is awesome, but if you think it’s boring and tiresome, study something else and get back to it at a later time. All the composers I listed (and that you could list yourself) end up knowing a lot of technique, but their music is great not because of the technique, but because of something else. Is it improved by technique? Sure.


----------



## InLight-Tone (May 6, 2017)

John that was a damn fine post!


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 7, 2017)

JohnG,
I'm just curious here about your wording in this sentence...

_*James Horner* (RIP): Studied at the Royal Academy of Music but, nevertheless, wrote music that millions of people bought and enjoyed._

The use of the word "nevertheless" could be deemed to be in the pejorative against the RAM, was it? I ask because the RAM was my alma mater and is one of the finest institutions in the world, teaching the art of music, but the RAM is not responsible for artistic decisions by an individual. I know that there is a tendency to promote the new in music in this institution (like others too), but the New musics' paradigm is totally different to media music and not any less a music for that - the fact that its appeal is limited does not detract from its legitimacy as an expression - it's just aesthetically different and subjectively more a deep personal statement. You might call modern music elitist and condescending to which I would say that anybody who studies anything in depth could be called elitist - knowledge of a subject will alienate your perception of it from the common consensus.
John, I'm not looking for a fight here, we all have our equally valid opinions. My take on technique is that it can only make you better if you are the right person for it and I will bang on about the benefits because I know what technique can do for creativity, as indeed you must do. I'll say again though, you have to have a proclivity for it I believe, if it is going to be of any use to you.
When I was in media (I took early retirement, to write the stuff that'll be played in the first half of a concert, also known in UK muso circles as a shit sandwich... I was often done out of a pitch by a non-reader, a lot of whom I knew and still know and respect. I have no snobbish attitude to this and in some cases, the guys I know might actually loose an edge in their thinking if they started to learn formally. The tricky part of technique is knowing when to leave it behind and trust the instinct it gives you.


----------



## Rowy (May 7, 2017)

mikeh-375 said:


> JohnG,
> I'm just curious here about your wording in this sentence...
> 
> _*James Horner* (RIP): Studied at the Royal Academy of Music but, nevertheless, wrote music that millions of people bought and enjoyed._



That gave me the creeps too. You do not study to encage your mind. A talented composer implements the things he learns. It is not ballast. It feeds you. Your talent is still at the wheel.


----------



## Kyle Preston (May 7, 2017)

This thread is turning into a breathing example of counterpoint: harmonically dependent opinions. Independent in rhythm & pitch.

Sorry to be so meta.


----------



## I like music (May 7, 2017)

Is this counterpoint? Apologies for hijacking the thread, but I posted the very same piece in another thread. I have exactly 0 musical training, and am as beginner as it gets. I have a distant and fuzzy understanding of what counterpoint is defined as, by different people. I'm just curious if this falls within any agreed definitions...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 7, 2017)

Independent lines = counterpoint. For example, around 3:20 the horns and high strings are playing independent lines (I'm listening on computer speakers, so I can't hear all the instruments that are playing - those are just the main ones).


----------



## bbunker (May 8, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Every time this topic has come up on v.i. control – this topic and any other topic that is beloved in the world of academe – the same pattern repeats.
> 
> 1. Someone (The Teacher) tells us about the glories of [technique x]
> 
> ...



There's something of a bizarre argument being made here, in blaming the study of technique for all of the ways that concert music has gone off the popular rails in the last century. Which I don't understand in the slightest. Because the complaint that the people I know, who dislike the music that you are pushing away from in this post, have is that those composers LACK CRAFT - that they have invented new craft (Dodecaphonic, Integral Serialism, Serializing of Electronic Parameters) that has replaced the traditional craft of making music. The problem that many tonal concert composers have with the new music that you dislike is basically that they haven't studied their counterpoint. (Amongst other 'traditional skillsets')

And those tonal composers who are played the most and loved the most know their counterpoint. I went to Peter Boyer's performance of his 'Ellis Island' work at the Pacific Symphony last month, and walked out (after several enthusiastic standing ovations) listening to the mostly-geriatric crowd sing his praises. And, having studied with Dr. Boyer, I can assure you that he spent a lot of time doing Species counterpoint. It didn't seem to have some chimerical negative effect on his melodic gifts.

None of which is to say that counterpoint is 'necessary' to write music. (Which, incidentally, would be a bizarre suggestion - as if it were some magical key, to some magical land unbeknownst to the uninitiated. Fat chance.) But I have to scratch my head at the suggestion that the enfants terribles, writing music that eschews any traditional compositional craft, are so made BECAUSE of too much study of those crafts. How does that make any sense?

I don't get the whole 'not inflicting technique' thing at all. Well - I would get it if the subject were Integral Serialism, but it takes a pretty fantastic amount of revisionist thinking to ignore virtually every composer BEFORE the modernists, and come to the conclusion that counterpoint will somehow corrupt your pure and melodic mind. Looking at the literally hundreds of pages that Beethoven wrote for Albrechtsberger and Haydn shows how the study sharpened his melodic gift, if it did anything in that capacity.

Seriously, study what you like. Of course. But writing a post saying 'Study what you like...but BEWARE of studying this academic stuff, BEWARE' seems a bit hypocritical.


----------



## Leon Willett (May 8, 2017)

Counterpoint is for when you want to have more than one melody at once 

- If you never want that, you don't need to study counterpoint.
- If you are already good at this, you don't need to study counterpoint.
- If you sometimes want more than one melody at once, but it doesn't come out the way you hoped, studying counterpoint is for you!

<3


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 8, 2017)

If your piece makes you happy all on its own, why bother? Look at Black Sabbath's "Iron Man": mostly just perfect fifths and octaves. Not much movement beyond the single melody.



And yes, I did mention to Sabbath to be bad.


----------



## Vik (May 8, 2017)

How important is counterpoint? The way I see it it's not 'important'. But if you want your musical pieces to have 'countermelodies' in addition to the main theme, you should find a way to to create such lines. Not to copy Bach or any other hero, but to add one or more interesting levels to what you create.


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 8, 2017)

Bbunker makes great points as far as I'm concerned.

You only have to see some of the thread titles on this forum from members asking for help with how to do such and such when it comes to writing, to realise that there is a demand for know how. The problem is that it takes a few years of consistent study to master or should I say assimilate techniques and make them work for you. I am only referring to orchestral/concert composition here mind you, but we all know how relevant it is in the music for media world. In the no fail and immediate gratification culture, study and personal development are almost an anathema.
Orchestration alone can become a life long study if you want to be excellent at it and make it part of your hearing whilst composing, not to mention every other discipline - and added to that DAW and production mastery - it all makes for an arduous learning curve.
Here's the thing though, it can be learnt by those who are drawn to it. It wont be for everybody, but for those who want to know more, I can assure you that it does NOT hinder you, it DOES however bring you into a deeper understanding of the notes you are manipulating and gives you more insight and more options. Imitative counterpoint in particular for example, is an excellent way to develop motifs.
Disparaging learning in the art of music, especially from an institution is absurd - a bit like not employing a graduate from MIT for an engineering job, simply because of his credentials.


----------



## Puzzlefactory (May 8, 2017)

For me (as a completely untrained noob) I see counterpoint as another tool for extending an arrangement. 

When you have an 8 bar melody, you can repeat it and keep it interesting for the listener by adding harmonic content, rhythmic devices, timbral changes and you can also add a countermelody. 

That's how I look it, anyway.


----------



## muk (May 8, 2017)

An underlying assumption that I read in some posts here is that counterpoint has to do with fugues and belongs to the time of Bach. That music has evolved big time since then, and counterpoint has not. So it is a dated technique that has lost its relevancy.

That is completely inaccurate. Counterpoint has evolved too since then, and there is a lot more you can do with it than writing fugues. Listen to Beethoven's Great Fugue, it would be a long stretch to argue that it sounds anything like Bach, or is the same counterpoint Bach used. No, it's an evolved counterpoint that Beethoven was taught by Albrechtsberger, and that he formed himself on that fundament to suit his creative visions. Schubert, shortly before his death, was seeking out counterpoint lessons specifically with Simon Sechter. He had written most of his oeuvre by then, and you can hardly say that he didn't know his counterpoint. But he still felt the urge to learn new things about it, to get a new perspective. And counterpoint in Brahms, again is something different. And in Schönberg!

Please listen to this:



It is a contrapuntal masterpiece! Would any listener think of Bach upon hearing this? Or of counterpoint even? (If you click on the youtube link there is a short description of all the contrapuntal wizardry Brahms put into this variation).

Another misconception is that counterpoint can not be beautiful, that it is overly intellectual. Well, I think the above Brahms put a huge question mark on that theory. Here is another example from the same set of variations:



I find this music deeply touching. If you didn't know the context you probably wouldn't have heard that it is a strict canon (the second voice is a major second apart). Again, did anybody hear Bach here?

If you ask me seeing 'the counterpoint' as one technique set in stone, that didn't change over time is a stark simplification. Instead, it is a multifaceted technique that has evolved - and still can evolve! Many of the great composers have 'their own counterpoint', in my opinion. So, studying counterpoint doesn't equal copying Bach, or writing fugues. Instead it can be another technique in your toolbox that you can use creatively. A technique that, like any other, you can use to create something uniquely your own.

All of this doesn't mean that you _have_ to learn counterpoint of course. But I hope it dispels some of the misconceptions why you wouldn't want to learn it.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 8, 2017)

Great kudos to @muk for an interesting post! I so loved that he brought up big daddy Schoenberg


----------



## mac (May 8, 2017)

I think @JohnG's point was that it isn't essential to write music, which is what the OP was asking. Then people started using strange words and talking funny, then I lost interest


----------



## JohnG (May 9, 2017)

mac said:


> I think @JohnG's point was that it isn't essential to write music, which is what the OP was asking. Then people started using strange words and talking funny, then I lost interest



mac pretty much sums it up.

Then, more posts that say essentially, "if only you UNDERSTOOD counterpoint, you wouldn't say that." I do understand counterpoint, and I still say that.


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 9, 2017)

Nevertheless, it's a handy thing to know about for orchestral work.


----------



## muk (May 9, 2017)

_Do you need_ it to write orchestral music? Maybe not.
_
Can you use it_ to write orchestral music? You bet you can.


----------



## JohnG (May 9, 2017)

muk said:


> _Do you need_ it to write orchestral music? Maybe not.
> _
> Can you use it_ to write orchestral music? You bet you can.



Well, duh.

I am a fan of doing what you want to do, artistically, and not waiting. I am an opponent of telling anyone "stop -- before you can do the thing you want to do, you must first master this other thing that is going to take a long time to master enough in order to really be effective."

So, as an orchestrator, conductor, and composer of many hours of orchestral music, I do like to know counterpoint, notation, alternative notation, conducting technique, and all that. It helps to gain insight quickly when looking at someone else's music, to understand why it's different and effective. All musical knowledge is useful and extends one's ability to communicate with others and to understand and to push one's music further.

My objection to those who insist on any particular practice is that, while useful and handy, as muk and mikeh-375 agree, *it is not a precondition*. Some posts here carry an insistent tone that, to me, implies counterpoint is indispensable to writing -- counterpoint is great, just not indispensable. And yes, it takes a number of forms (though at some point it's not counterpoint any more, just contrary motion -- but I don't want to fuss over nomenclature).

Below follows wise advice from another composer whose work I admire a great deal. Besides being a successful composer, he is also an extremely successful studio, session, and big-arena player and can play a number of instruments very well. He used to post here under the name "poseur:"

reading, writing and their ability to speed 
attendant analysis skills are important,
are certainly key & helpful.....

..... but, i think that developing one's ears
via focused listening, playing & occasionally brutal
self-criticism remains important, too.


maybe we can gain much by remembering this: 
maybe it can bring us closer to stronger internalisations
of core musical concepts:
harmony, melody, rhythm, arr & orch:
over and above intellectualised analyses,
which certainly can lead to the lionisation of the
analytical approaches at the cost of something dear
to the root-impulse to create works of un-prefabricated
feeling.


that said, 
i read & write, & still have some cause to sight-read..... under pressure, with the red-light on.
it might be seen as important that our paths
are founded on the bases of the creation of original works,
sincere works that offer
our own personal viewpoints and perspectives;
i think it can be dangerous to suggest that
good composition absolutely requires reading & writing,
first & foremost:

i don't believe that the basic, childlike impulse to compose should be overlooked as an absolutely primary factor 
worthy of work & development.


i also think that any instrument that one plays well 
--- the more, the merrier ---
can, indeed, be folded into the approach through
which we compose,
and can thereby enrich both our understanding
of our own writing, as well as its reach & potential:

i suggest continuing to use those instruments in one's compositional flow, and pursuing them. 

unlike many,
i don't believe there's a fundamental problem
with composing-by-ear.....

if, 

a) you're increasing the capacity of your ear, and 
b) you simultaneously develop various methods of
intra-musical communication.....
..... including (but, not limited-to) reading & writing.
..... seems like what's primary to music of value is that

1) we actually have something to say, and 
2) we can say it.


so, yeah: 

do learn to read & write, so that you can study & analyse scores, & cmprehend harmony & rhythm..... 
but, listen more & with greater concentration,
sing more melodies (alone, without any instrument to hand), and continue to play all your instruments
with musical vigor:
internalise the feelings of
isolated pieces of music.
everything you learn
--- no matter how, or in what chronological order ---

it's all important. 

sorry for the potentially useless babble;
i'm tired.....

poseur


----------



## sinkd (May 9, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Well, it depends on what one's goals are. I love all that stuff; I perform it every week. But telling us about Mozart's interest in and ability to write a fugue is, I'm afraid, not very persuasive.


Not my point. Mozart studied species counterpoint to improve as a composer when he was already pretty awesome. Species (16th century) counterpoint is about voice leading and the rhythms of consonance and dissonance (not writing fugues which is usually called 18th century counterpoint). Understanding it (species) can enhance your skills *in any style,* including especially modern, modal tonalities or even atonal writing.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 9, 2017)

I think @JohnG hit it, from all angles.

I just make my music...if it needs more motion I'll add things like counterpoint. If it doesn't, I don't.

When I was a lot younger I would sometimes make the rookie mistake of throwing counterpoint in there anyway, just to be more "complex" and regretted it later when it became either/or confused, unnecessarily convoluted, and often unlistenable.

I should mention though, more often than not I've written something essentially monophonic, left it alone for awhile and come back to experiment, only to find that some newly-added counterpoint worked way better than I'd originally envisioned for the piece.

I mean it's true, follow your inner idea, but be open to skills that _*might make it even better*_.


----------



## GULL (May 9, 2017)

Voider said:


> Hey! This might be a noobish question but I just finished to learn the basics of music theory (harmonies) and I am thinking about buying a book to learn about counterpoint.
> 
> How essential is it to know about it, and is it kind of the "main composing technique" used nowadays?
> Are there other common techniques with a specific name? (So I can look up for books)
> ...



I don't think *Is it important or not ?* is the important question for a composer. That is the question for an analyst.
See what is a counterpoint. See if you like it, grasp it and you find the technique worthy in your works. My humble opinion.


----------



## Dave Connor (May 9, 2017)

I don't think it's been stated here that traditionally speaking, the training of a composer included counterpoint as a vital foundational study and not as some sort of add-on or elective. That makes sense of course when you consider the predominance of counterpoint for half a millennia prior to Bach and Mozart. That is also why you would have a very difficult time finding classical compositions void of contrapuntal textures. The same is true of film music throughout its history. There is counterpoint everywhere or at least the work of people who understood it well. It's just one of those great tools that can be used in 1000 different ways whether in a single countermelody or a complete contrapuntal texture such as repeatedly found in the Game of Thrones scores.

There's no law that one needs to study it in some prolonged and difficult way. But if you ask the question, _is it important to learn it_, so far history says a definite yes. That doesn't mean every single composer out there is bound to study or use it no matter what. There's tons of music where you don't find pure counterpoint or even hints at it. But that doesn't take away from its importance in music for almost as long as music has been around in the West. Whatever a student may choose in studying counterpoint or not, one thing is for sure, it should not be disparaged in anyway as it is one of the glories of music over centuries and continues to be to this day.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (May 9, 2017)

There are a lot of things you could choose to study, or not, on the way to becoming a better composer. You could learn how to read music, you could learn about harmony, counterpoint, instrumentation, orchestration etc. Or you could choose to study none of these things and still write music, even orchestral music. However, particularly when it comes to the latter, there is no doubt in my mind that the less you know of those subjects, the more limited is your capacity to fully express yourself in your music. You will be hampered in ways that you can't imagine if you don't take the time to get to a certain level in terms of the theory, of which counterpoint is one aspect. I know there are plenty of people who will disagree with this view and who believe that instinct, feel and 'just doing it' are enough but to me it's like any field of endeavour or learning, a certain level of (applied) theoretical awareness is essential to the practice if that practice is to achieve excellence and to stretch the composer to grow beyond their defaults.

It's like a guitarist/songwriter who only knows a limited number of chords. No matter how much natural talent and passion they have, their songs will always sound similar because they are only able to draw on their limited chord knowledge. My composition teacher used to talk about 'guided intuition' - of course we use our instinct, feeling and intuition to write music but those need to be guided by our knowledge, otherwise we will be likely to go around in circles and to simply recycle the same old material every time we write. We really do need to 'stand on the shoulders of giants' if we want to grow as composers. And all the true giants in orchestral writing had a deep knowledge of relevant theory. It just goes with the territory.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (May 9, 2017)

Why deny yourself something that can be assimilated painlessly over time, and that can add another facet to your understanding of music?
Not to mention the fact that as a media composer, you may need one day to emulate the era, and will be glad that you incorporated species into your knowledge base.
It is not either or.
The brain is capable of swallowing oceans...


----------



## Replicant (May 9, 2017)

Patrick de Caumette said:


> Not to mention the fact that *as a media composer, you may need one day* to emulate the era, and will be glad that you incorporated species into your knowledge base.



I'd like to discuss this for a moment.

While I don't have decades of experience professionally under my belt like many others here, there is one thing I have learned for sure.

It's that being a "jack of all trades" can actually be a hindrance rather than an advantage.

When I started out, because I like a lot of genres and because I thought it would give me an advantage, I tried to do everything. I wanted it to be to such a point that no matter what genre was asked of me, I could do it.

The trouble is that in every genre and the branching subgenres within, it actually takes considerable practice, study, a fair amount of money to secure the required musicians or virtual instruments, failed pieces and esoteric knowledge to truly nail the style with authenticity.

In reality, most of us are only good at a few things and passable at best in the others. In all the little video game scores I worked on, most wanted either orchestra or retro electronic scores and I don't even particularly enjoy or consider myself great at the latter. I've never been called upon to compose a fugue for a game or indie film, doubt I ever will be and same goes for any big-beat electronica I do, funk or anything else I poured hundreds of hours into over the years; maybe in production music...but as a media composer for hire? Doubt it.

If someone came to me and said "Hey, can you give me a dubstep soundtrack or a complex counterpoint piece?" I'd say no. Not because I couldn't do those, but because it's not my specialty and I don't particularly enjoy that music anyway. But I do know people who are experts of that whom I can refer you to who would also refer you to me for things they don't do.

*Focus on what you're good at and enjoy. *There is room for Jerry Goldsmith and Williams, Bach and Hans Zimmer styles and they rarely are found in equal competency in one person.

So I think the idea of 'You _may _one day need" is not great advice for aspiring media composers.


----------



## bbunker (May 9, 2017)

Replicant said:


> I'd like to discuss this for a moment.
> 
> While I don't have decades of experience professionally under my belt like many others here, there is one thing I have learned for sure.
> 
> ...



The problem here is the strange calculus involved in equating 'counterpoint' with one particular subset of the discipline, namely complex fugal contrapuntal writing in the style of Bach. It's a bit like if we talked about 'orchestration' and only talked about Strauss or Mahler. "Well, I don't want to write Rosenkavalier - I want to write like John Williams, so I don't have any need to study orchestration" or something along those lines. Hopefully that sentence will raise a few eyebrows.

The thing that strikes me about your last sentence is that at least three of the people you mentioned studied Counterpoint formally. So, it raises a kind of auxiliary question - do you only study the actual works that the people who inspire you wrote, or do you look at what they looked at to learn to write what they wrote??


----------



## Dave Connor (May 9, 2017)

Hans Zimmer is wonderful melodic writer who weaves all kinds of textures so I wouldn't leave him out of the mix either. As most, he has a personal style and makes it work for him. That's really the idea here though: that it's useful in any medium and style.


----------



## jonnybutter (May 9, 2017)

bbunker said:


> The problem here is the strange calculus involved in equating 'counterpoint' with one particular subset of the discipline, namely complex fugal contrapuntal writing in the style of Bach.



In other words, counterpoint as a _musical concept _is vital, and I totally agree. But why not study a peak of that aspect? It costs nothing to at least listen to and appreciate great Bach counterpoint. It never gets old, to my ear. Totally worth it to write a few 4 part harmony exercises and then add counterpoint. Just get a book and do some. Doesn't take years or a school.


----------



## Replicant (May 9, 2017)

bbunker said:


> The problem here is the strange calculus involved in equating 'counterpoint' with one particular subset of the discipline, namely complex fugal contrapuntal writing in the style of Bach. It's a bit like if we talked about 'orchestration' and only talked about Strauss or Mahler. "Well, I don't want to write Rosenkavalier - I want to write like John Williams, so I don't have any need to study orchestration" or something along those lines. Hopefully that sentence will raise a few eyebrows.
> 
> The thing that strikes me about your last sentence is that at least three of the people you mentioned studied Counterpoint formally. So, it raises a kind of auxiliary question - do you only study the actual works that the people who inspire you wrote, or do you look at what they looked at to learn to write what they wrote??



Your point about writing like John Williams is false equivalence. If you want to write like X composer, you can just study that composer and learn whatever they're actually putting into use.

Actual contrapuntal music _sounds_ dramatically different from the usual homophonic texture. 

and the former texture is rarely required or even asked for. To be honest with you, I don't particularly enjoy listening to a lot of it and I stagger to think that so much western music is homophonic now just because everyone got "dumber" as academic elites would have us believe. 

So I side with John's point that you can learn and apply polyphonic concepts without learning "counterpoint" in the traditional sense and I disagree with "if you're a media composer you should be able to write like that" because it's not even something found in the overwhelming majority of music these days.

If you want to write mostly contrapuntal pieces, that's fantastic; you do that and I'm sure you will find a market for it.

Just want to write strictly homophonic pieces? That's fine too, you'll certainly have no shortage of opportunity there.

Want to learn both? Great idea as well.

But learning counterpoint because "you might get a job where you need to write old-sounding pieces" is like saying "learn to write country music because some soundtrack you might do will call for it!" in both cases; it's not likely that you will and if you're not particularly good at it nor have much of an interest in it, you do actually have the power to say "no" and realize that you're not always the (wo)man for the job.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (May 9, 2017)

Replicant said:


> I'd like to discuss this for a moment.
> 
> being a "jack of all trades" can actually be a hindrance rather than an advantage.
> 
> ...




You are right in many of the things that you are saying.
It does take time to absorb a lot of styles and techniques and those that decide to follow that path will need more time to get to a proficient level, versus doing only one thing, which obviously will be assimilated faster.
That's a personal decision. If you have no interest in a specific genre, then why bother?
There are many, many concepts, styles and cultures available, so focusing on what rocks your boat is totally cool.
But for those that are curious and are open to a lot of various genres, why not enrich your vocabulary with something that was a foundation of significant historical movements?
Especially, as some here say, since this knowledge can be applied beyond the time period when that technique peaked?
I didn't mean to say that you should learn it because one day you may necessarily have to write a fugue. Such opportunities are rare, compared to the type of scores that are usually needed.
But you can apply all of it to create some cool, fresh ideas if you are so inclined.

Focusing on what you are good at and enjoying it sounds like a good plan.
But again, it's not either or...


----------



## Replicant (May 9, 2017)

I agree. I'm not saying people shouldn't learn it, I'm just saying that a lot of the polyphonic concepts you can apply to modern music don't require you to have an in-depth understanding of "counterpoint" and all the "species" etc. even if they are directly taken from it.


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 10, 2017)

Replicant,
I get what you are saying and agree to a certain extent. 
What I would suggest is that to dismiss "in-depth" understanding is to do yourself out of solid guiding principles that will then operate autonomously under the hood as you write. Why not absorb the fundamentals, they are free, what harm can it do. A bit of effort that will improve your ability, despite what others here say, is a no brainer.


----------



## Critz (May 10, 2017)

P


JohnG said:


> It is always fine to learn more about music. If you like listening to Buxtehude or Bach (or most of the guys from yesteryear) you might find it gratifying. I love those guys so I like knowing a bit about it.
> 
> If, by contrast, your question is, "to write music for games and media, is it _necessary_ to learn counterpoint?" I would say "no." For one thing, counterpoint emphasizes modulation, which I think to most people nowadays smacks of "old-fashioned."



Whaaat?? What's the connection betweem counterpoint and modulation??


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 10, 2017)

To be fair to JohnG he qualified it with "to write for games and media, is it necessary....." and in that context, sure why not, take that advice and don't aspire to great orchestral scores, because you wont be able to do it. 
John, I too would like to know what your thinking is on counterpoint "_emphasising"_ modulation too in this context - if only for the sake of a debate that might help anyone considering learning more about the craft get a balanced consensus of opinion to act upon.


----------



## Replicant (May 10, 2017)

mikeh-375 said:


> Replicant,
> I get what you are saying and agree to a certain extent.
> What I would suggest is that to dismiss "in-depth" understanding is to do yourself out of solid guiding principles that will then operate autonomously under the hood as you write. Why not absorb the fundamentals, they are free, what harm can it do. A bit of effort that will improve your ability, despite what others here say, is a no brainer.



True


----------



## sinkd (May 10, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> I just make my music...if it needs more motion I'll add things like counterpoint. If it doesn't, I don't.
> 
> When I was a lot younger I would sometimes make the rookie mistake of throwing counterpoint in there anyway, just to be more "complex" and regretted it later when it became either/or confused, unnecessarily convoluted, and often unlistenable.



But counterpoint is not just something that you should keep in your Bat Belt like filigree and toss in when you need it or want it. Even just the relationship of a melody and bass line is contrapuntal.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 10, 2017)

sinkd said:


> But counterpoint is not just something that you should keep in your Bat Belt like filigree and toss in when you need it or want it.



No disrespect intended, but you just regurgitated what I wrote

I admit, you made it more colorful with Batman. So, creative regurgitation!

Just teasing, my friend. You know you made perfectly valid points, regardless.


----------



## Flaneurette (May 10, 2017)

If you make music long enough, you'll find that you automatically start doing what theory teaches us. It just takes longer to figure it out. Some things just sound good. Especially if you sing. (if in doubt, sing it out loud) Happened to me. I knew nothing about music theory, until I discovered the names people gave it. Only then I started to read about music theory, which was like reading yesterday's newspaper. Stuff that I was already doing. Only to discover that what I did already has been done before, better, and people even gave it a name. Instead of doing this "cool thing", I learned it had this serious highbrow name. 

This is one of the best books on theory: https://howmusicreallyworks.com/

First 6 chapters are free. It pretty much explains everything in a contemporary method.


----------



## sinkd (May 10, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> No disrespect intended, but you just regurgitated what I wrote
> 
> I admit, you made it more colorful with Batman. So, creative regurgitation!
> 
> Just teasing, my friend. You know you made perfectly valid points, regardless.


"If it needs more motion, I'll add things like counterpoint." 

I think this is an incomplete way to think about counterpoint and is really what I was responding to. You explained that in your youth, you often found that "adding counterpoint" was ineffective in enhancing your music. You never expanded on what your more mature understanding has become.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 10, 2017)

sinkd said:


> "If it needs more motion, I'll add things like counterpoint."
> 
> I think this is an incomplete way to think about counterpoint and is really what I was responding to. You explained that in your youth, you often found that "adding counterpoint" was ineffective in enhancing your music. You never expanded on what your more mature understanding has become.



I didn't say it was ineffective, I simply said that I had a bad habit of sometimes applying counterpoint to something that didn't need it...I guess in the hopes of becoming... more "Byzantine" might be a novel way to put it. There were also times I applied it and it made the piece far, far better.

So, you really did misread my post. No big deal. It's okay to admit you stuck your foot in your mouth. Better than to keep shoving it in further. I'm been guilty of both in the past btw, too many times.

Again, I mean no disrespect, but I recommend you read my post one more time. The meaning is clear.

Also btw, this is getting silly so I'm going to respectfully bow out.


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 11, 2017)

Guys n gals, 

I found this resource of archived texts and media. It is great for finding text books on technique and is free to download. I thought it might be worth calling your attention to if you haven't already seen it.
Just put something into the search engine like counterpoint or orchestration, harmony etc. and it'll come up with free books to download there and then, or read online - just brilliant.
If you are thinking about learning a bit more about your craft, this is as good a place to start as any because there are lots of good text that start from the basics up.
Here's the link.......
https://archive.org


----------



## Dave Connor (May 11, 2017)

I thought @JohnG gave very good advice. He didn't think someone coming up in music should be stopped in his tracks and needlessly burdened by a false idea that he was missing something in his education. That is, missing to the point of disqualification in working professionally as a composer. That is wise, encouraging advice. The larger question of _the importance of counterpoint_ in music was simply answered in the affirmative by others since it is a well proven musical technique that bolsters numerous vital aspects of the writing process. I don't see a conflict between the two responses to the original question.


----------



## Vik (May 23, 2017)

I often find the countermelodies more important - or ar least as interesting, melodically, as the main melody.


----------

