# How the heck do you learn counterpoint without a teacher?



## dannydawiz

I'm confident with a lot of things in music. Counterpoint is NOT one of them.

I learned up to first species with the help of someone on the internet 4 years ago but I found it really difficult. He basically just gave me a cantus and had me fill out a bass melody point per point underneath that cantus. Meanwhile I just followed all the rules of avoiding parallel octaves/fifths and etc..

I feel like this approach is impractical though. I can't possibly believe that bach put THIS much conscious thought into his counterpoint. The dude could literally improvise fugues according to legend.

So what the heck should I do to learn it? I've been thinking about transcribing a bunch of stuff. For those of you who are good at counterpoint how did you get there and what's your thought process like?


----------



## DocMidi657

check out this course. https://scoreclub.net/course/practical-counterpoint/


----------



## Ale8ory

In my opinion that's like saying how can I learn to play piano without a teacher? Even my counterpoint class in college was insufficient. If you want to learn counterpoint, I think it's an advantage to have a teacher, because it takes a ton of practice and supervision to write it well.


----------



## CDNmusic

DocMidi657 said:


> check out this course. https://scoreclub.net/course/practical-counterpoint/


Exactly


----------



## Living Fossil

dannydawiz said:


> I feel like this approach is impractical though. I can't possibly believe that bach put THIS much conscious thought into his counterpoint. The dude could literally improvise fugues according to legend.



You should not forget that in the baroque epoche the formal training was about 8 years (to be considered as "professional" composer). And counterpoint had a much more important role in music than today.
And as an organist Bach had daily training in improvising over years and years.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

I'd say that you can learn it on your own but it's a lot more difficult to catch your own mistakes. 

I first studied counterpoint when I was 14 with a teacher. Although I passed the royal conservatory exam, I didn't really learn much and had no idea what I was doing. In high school, I read a number of books on my own and found that it wasn't helpful. There was so much information that I didn't know what was important and what I could brush off. Not doing any exercises during that time didn't help. 

Now I'm taking a course in university and so far it's been the best. Even though we've only covered very basic material, I've learned a lot more than before. I think it has to do with the fact that we do so many exercises. We've only gotten through 2 chapters in 5 weeks of classes yet it's been very intense. Normally the professor puts a problem up on the board (4-8 measures) and we usually end up taking up the entire hour only to add a single line to it. On my own I'd never be able to learn it this way. 

You should also see which sort of counterpoint you're looking to learn. I've only done that which surrounds Bach's music but there are many resources which focus exclusively earlier vocal polyphony or up to contemporary music. The rules and principles vary greatly.


----------



## dannydawiz

DocMidi657 said:


> check out this course. https://scoreclub.net/course/practical-counterpoint/



Thank you so much. 


Ale8ory said:


> In my opinion that's like saying how can I learn to play piano without a teacher? Even my counterpoint class in college was insufficient. If you want to learn counterpoint, I think it's an advantage to have a teacher, because it takes a ton of practice and supervision to write it well.



Thanks for your post. I 100% agree with you that it is an advantage to have a teacher. Thing is... I don't have a teacher, I don't go to school for music, and have no idea where to find a counterpoint teacher.

Hence why I decided to ask for help from the forum.



Living Fossil said:


> You should not forget that in the baroque epoche the formal training was about 8 years (to be considered as "professional" composer). And counterpoint had a much more important role in music than today.
> And as an organist Bach had daily training in improvising over years and years.



Thank you very much. I had NO idea. Helps put things into perspective.


douggibson said:


> Hmm..... Well I would ask first why you would want to learn this without a instructor. Ok, you didn't click with one person..... so what. Find a teacher you do click with. Why do you even want to learn about counterpoint ?
> I believe Mike Verta has a class on counterpoint and he is very good at "cliff note-ing" (in the best way !) concepts.
> 
> I'll continue with a few points, and feel free to stop reading when you want.
> 
> 1). Personally, I don't think (my guess) you really want to learn counterpoint in the strict since. Just write music you enjoy. Perhaps you feel there is a "should" that is influencing your thinking. As in every composer "should" know counterpoint.
> 
> 2.) I listened to the links you posted (*side note: I used to live across the street from Markus Schulz for about a year in Arizona. This was mid-90's)...... learn harmony (jazz) courses instead. Go more for a understanding of harmonizing lines. I think this is what you actually are looking for. If one learns to harmonize any diatonic progression with fluency you can go really far with it professionally. Focus on your musical strengths.
> 
> Now, (I read another thread which makes me ponder if I should ever post an honest thought in this forum anymore.)
> _this next comment is not meant to attack, or criticize you._ I am simply trying to save you time and frustration. I have no reason at all to attack you.... I am assuming you can handle what my honest impression is of your approach to your goals, and you are mature enough to dismiss these thoughts if they do not serve you. Please prove me wrong !
> 
> You simply are not committed enough to learn counterpoint in any meaningful way. You're like the person who hits the gym the first week of Jan. every year, and then quits.
> 
> How do I know ? Well first you already assume you know more than your previous teacher. You then waited 4 years to think about studying it again ? You then state
> _"I can't possibly believe that bach put THIS much conscious thought into his counterpoint. The dude could literally improvise fugues according to legend.'_
> 
> "Dude", this is so flawed. Perhaps the only reason he could improvise fugues is because he put so much conscious thought into it. Seriously, you are saying "Those deeply religious Germans who thought work was a devotion to God, probably weren't very precise or disciplined". Please.
> 
> Then "_I've been thinking about transcribing a bunch of stuff." _Do it ! The fact you have not moved from thinking about it to doing it says everything. Until you change your mindset nothing is going to improve.
> 
> To really learn counterpoint you are going to have to learn some piano (figured bass), and also singing. Solfeggio is critical. Ideally your teacher will make you read open scores (yes, soprano clef, tenor, alto and so on)
> You have to sing the lines. Without this, you are not really learning it deeply. If this sounds awful, then focus on
> something else with your music practice.
> 
> Lastly, to finally get to what you were asking about, if you decide to go on anyway what are the best resources ?
> 
> Fux, is the standard classic. I personally like the book by Feliz Salzer. Also a great book, but is hard to find is called "Composer as teacher and student" It has Bach's lessons, as well as Beethoven's, Mozart, Schubert etc. You can see what was used, and what was corrected. The Study of Fugue by Alfred Mann is another classic. But you need an instructor for these.
> 
> online I would say Peter Schubert is the most historically informed, and inspiring with improvisation being emphasized
> 
> 
> 
> I am biased here, as this video has my own teacher/neighbor/friend who regularly improvises fugues on themes from the audience. In this video he improvises an entire baroque suite on the spot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just remember, there are no short cuts. You have to put in the work. There are plenty of materials available. Any that don't put demands on you are simply like "Fat blaster" infomercials. I wish you all the best




Hi. Thanks for typing all that out. I DO want to learn with a teacher. But I'm a broke college student who lacks the resources to find or access a teacher. Hence why I decided to ask here about.

I think you are coming to false conclusions. It's not that I didn't click with my past teacher. I had met him through a forum when I was 14 and he was kind enough to teach me and correct my work for free. He then disappeared one day without a trace. This was 4-5 years ago.

You're kinda right on point one. I don't really know why I wanna learn it. I just feel like I "should" learn it and I'm curious about it because I feel kinda incomplete not being able to understand it.

It's cool that you lived near Markus Schultz! Jazz harmony is my favorite. I'm always looking for ways to break out of diatonic chord progressions because lately I've been getting bored with the same diatonic progressions and trying to find ways to make them more unique. Mostly through modal interchange.

Don't worry man I'm not offended. I do think you have the wrong impression of course. Never at any point had I ever claimed that I'd known more than my previous teacher. I don't really know how you took it that way. Reason why I waited for another 4 years is because like I said I could never find another teacher and it was WAY to hard for me to practice on my own.

So yeah I see your point on the whole "bach" thing. I was misinformed so sorry if it offended you. I was just kind of curious about whether you guys thought that transcribing & analyzing counterpoint would be helpful or not.

I remember figured bass and can play a little bit of piano. Singing needs some work.

I'll check out your links and recommendations on fux. Thanks for that. 

By the way... You're friend is insane. :D


----------



## dannydawiz

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> I'd say that you can learn it on your own but it's a lot more difficult to catch your own mistakes.
> 
> I first studied counterpoint when I was 14 with a teacher. Although I passed the royal conservatory exam, I didn't really learn much and had no idea what I was doing. In high school, I read a number of books on my own and found that it wasn't helpful. There was so much information that I didn't know what was important and what I could brush off. Not doing any exercises during that time didn't help.
> 
> Now I'm taking a course in university and so far it's been the best. Even though we've only covered very basic material, I've learned a lot more than before. I think it has to do with the fact that we do so many exercises. We've only gotten through 2 chapters in 5 weeks of classes yet it's been very intense. Normally the professor puts a problem up on the board (4-8 measures) and we usually end up taking up the entire hour only to add a single line to it. On my own I'd never be able to learn it this way.
> 
> You should also see which sort of counterpoint you're looking to learn. I've only done that which surrounds Bach's music but there are many resources which focus exclusively earlier vocal polyphony or up to contemporary music. The rules and principles vary greatly.



Thanks a lot. Your thoughts really help put things into perspective. 

I know this might not be bach style but I REALLY love this kind of counterpoint.



I just noticed the contrary motion between the melody and the bass and how awesome it sounded as the main theme.

Oh! And 0:16 is also one of my favorite themes here. Once again I know it's not traditional and might be a bad example of counterpoint. (I'm not really sure) But this stuff sounds really awesome and if I could incorporate that sort of stuff in my music I definitely would.


----------



## jemu999

dannydawiz said:


> I know this might not be bach style but I REALLY love this kind of counterpoint.


Thanks for posting this. Amazing.


----------



## dannydawiz

jemu999 said:


> Thanks for posting this. Amazing.


 Glad you liked it! Were you referring to hisaishi or zedd?


----------



## jemu999

dannydawiz said:


> I know this might not be bach style but I REALLY love this kind of counterpoint.





dannydawiz said:


> Glad you liked it! Were you referring to hisaishi or zedd?


Hisiashi -


----------



## Dave Connor

The study of counterpoint is invaluable as it requires a thorough understanding of the main elements of music while having them all flow together in a single appealing tapestry. Melody, Harmony, Rhythm, Form, along with countless devices such as sequence, variation, extension, et. al., are all brought together in a very exposed way which will reveal any strengths or weaknesses. Ultimately it is a very high level of ear training so as to maintain resonance in structures built on multiple melodic lines. An unintended modulation in a melodic line for example will weaken the structure, and it is this primal ingredient that governs the contrapuntal texture. Hence Bach's supreme clarity in his textures that never seem unstable or unsure (foggy.) It's the deep end of the swimming pool so you must have a teacher. I studied and have taught it for years.


----------



## Selfinflicted

Species counter point is like anything else in music theory - observations about what has been done/what has worked in the past. Try to think of it more as guidelines about common practice (for an era). Like any theory, try to understand the reasoning behind the theory and not blindly follow the 'rules'. Take parallels 5ths and octaves for instance. The reason they aren't good (which again, is a guideline for polyphonic music and traditional harmony only) is because they have the effect of voices disappearing, as those intervals are naturally present in the overtone series. But, Debussy used them to great effect. The best thing is to just absorb a lot of music - Bach. Mozart and Beethoven are great for this. Counterpoint starts with writing good lines/melodies and then learning to put one melody/line against another.

The Grove Dictionary of Music and such have nice overviews of the basic concepts. That is a good place to start to get an overview of the concepts (1st species is note against note - basic melody writing, 2nd species is 2:1 rhythmic ratio, 3rd is 4 to one, 4th is syncopation or suspension, and 5th is free/mixing of 1-4, and the basic types of motion). Look through something like Bach's 2 and 3 part inventions and Well Tempered Klavier. Understand basic melody writing (what are active tones, what are the different common ways of going between them, etc). Fux is pretty dry writing. Piston and Kennan 20th century texts that are much palatable and deal with tonal/baroque (Bach's day and later) counterpoint and later, as opposed to renaissance/modal counterpoint (Palestrina, etc al). Percy Goetschius also has a book on melody writing that is well worth checking out.


----------



## Kareemo

DocMidi657 said:


> check out this course. https://scoreclub.net/course/practical-counterpoint/


Great, practical and modern course. Better than any old book.


----------



## Leon Willett

Hello! I want to offer my two cents because there is a lot of confusion (understandably, given the books!) about what counterpoint IS, and how it differs from harmony.

HARMONY is when a bunch of voices share the same contour, or a contour that is similar enough that the listener bunches up all those lines into one big fat "thing". To a listener it sounds like a fattened melody, where the lower lines are just "shadows" of the top line. For example, a string pad, as an accompaniment, is just a very peaceful melody with slow shadows. Perhaps those shadows go all the way down to the bass 

COUNTERPOINT is when the listener has the distinct impression that there is more than one important "thing" in the music. A typical example would be two melodies, with different contours, going at once. If a pop singer makes a melody, and then a horn section "answers", with a distinct contour, that feels to the listener like another "thing" popped out of the music in that moment, then this is counterpoint.

An interesting detail: many books and courses (wrongly) propose that contrary motion is the king of counterpoint. In fact, oblique motion is the king of counterpoint! This is where one voice holds a note, and the other wiggles around. For example, first species counterpoint is just 2 voice harmony. Sorry, books, you got that one wrong!

If it sounds like one "thing", however fat, it is harmony. If it sounds like two "things" in competition for your attention, it is counterpoint.

For example: in the Joe Hisaishi example above, when the strings kick off the piece, this is harmony. All the string lines have a similar enough contour (a good example of how contrary motion will not help a line "detach" much). It is basically a melody with a whole bunch of delicious interval flavours hanging off it. Harmony!

However, when the woodwinds "answer" at 0:14, a new "thing" pops out of the music. I call these things objects. When the woodwinds come in, the number of objects in the music has gone from one to two. This is counterpoint! Notice how the second object, carried by the woodwinds is clearly "detached" from the first by having lots of oblique motion; a distinct contour. Counterpoint!

Finally, the whole point of all this is that you identify what you want (what you are "hearing" as a composer), and achieve it! If you are desiring a nice fat pad, or a melody with some delicious "shadows", use harmony. If you are desiring two or more distinct objects, use counterpoint!

Good luck boys and grills.


----------



## Uncle Peter

The undisputed heavyweight champion of counterpoint is JS Bach. He is the only teacher you need. Just play Bach - any of it. If you're a keyboard player - get hold of the 48 preludes and fugues/Goldberg variations. If you're a guitarist get the sheet music for the lute suites. Listen to lots of it - study the fun accessible stuff - the Brandenburgs for example. JSB is just kicking back and having fun here. The well known first movement of the 3rd in Gmaj is so well balanced. All of the parts are doing something all of the time (I think - from memory!). I.e the basses don't just stop for 12 bars and then come back in. Being Bach it's full of contrapuntal melodies - without even trying. Each part is interesting just played on it's own. 
Study the canons and fugues. I've posted a link before to a site... here you go - wade through this. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/tas3/bachindex.html.


----------



## chibear

dannydawiz said:


> I'm confident with a lot of things in music. Counterpoint is NOT one of them.
> 
> I learned up to first species with the help of someone on the internet 4 years ago but I found it really difficult. He basically just gave me a cantus and had me fill out a bass melody point per point underneath that cantus. Meanwhile I just followed all the rules of avoiding parallel octaves/fifths and etc..
> 
> I feel like this approach is impractical though. I can't possibly believe that bach put THIS much conscious thought into his counterpoint. The dude could literally improvise fugues according to legend.



I'm by no means an 'expert', but my 2 cents:

Didn't read the rest of the thread, so apologies if this is redundant. Bach's ability to improvise and skills with counterpoint are what make Bach Bach. He heard it in his head. Very few who have attempted fugues (for instance) since have even come close to his product quality.

I had 2 quarters of counterpoint decades ago and by the end of the second course it was obvious that it pretty much boiled down to obeying the rules of traditional harmony and paying attention to your passing tones. The rest you have to rely on your ear.

The above applies to traditional harmonic structure. If you intend to operate in any of the 20th and 21st century harmonic systems, you pretty much have to rely on your ears and just make it sound good


----------



## wst3

two more cents worth... I think a teacher is a big help in the early stages of almost any musical endeavor, indispensable almost. As you advance it becomes somewhat easier to teach yourself.

I've sort of lost track here, but if you've already had some exposure to counterpoint I'm going to toss out a really bizarre suggestion - I studied counterpoint in high school and college, and then didn't touch it again for a long time. When I finally realized I'd have a much better time if I understood counterpoint (and I do believe that to be the case) I dug up this old Mickey Baker book on arranging. His approach to counterpoint is not, by any stretch, rigorous, but I was happy to see I could regain some of the old brain cells. It set me up for more formal training nicely.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

dannydawiz said:


> I'm confident with a lot of things in music. Counterpoint is NOT one of them.
> 
> I learned up to first species with the help of someone on the internet 4 years ago but I found it really difficult. He basically just gave me a cantus and had me fill out a bass melody point per point underneath that cantus. Meanwhile I just followed all the rules of avoiding parallel octaves/fifths and etc..
> 
> I feel like this approach is impractical though. I can't possibly believe that bach put THIS much conscious thought into his counterpoint. The dude could literally improvise fugues according to legend.
> 
> So what the heck should I do to learn it? I've been thinking about transcribing a bunch of stuff. For those of you who are good at counterpoint how did you get there and what's your thought process like?



If you have the discipline and motivation you can do it. I've been teaching counterpoint for a long time. Do you want to study 16th century (modal) counterpoint, 18th century (Bach) counterpoint, 20th century counterpoint, or all three? 

I recommend starting with 18th century (tonal, Bach) counterpoint, Kent Kennan's book and workbook is excellent, I've taken many students through the entire book. You'll do many exercises and write a 2-part and 3-part invention, as well as a 3-part and 4-part fugue. 

Don't listen to those around here who say studying counterpoint isn't important. They really don't know what they are talking about. Counterpoint studies greatly increases your sensitivity to voice-leading and texture, and will be a great help to orchestrating. I look at theoretical studies as similar to the scaffolding that is used when a building is being built. It's necessary for the construction, but after the building is complete, it's no longer necessary. Theory is not your craft as a composer, it is an adjunct to your craft that sharpens your listening skills. The theory of music evolved by studying the works of many composers during a given time period. Generalizations and principles evolved about what composers generally did, or didn't do. The purpose of theory is not to suggest how music should be written, nor is it to predict how music will be written, but rather to deepen one's perception and sensitivity to the nuances of harmony, harmonic progression, voice-leading and counterpoint, and form and structure. Aaron Copland wrote that he loves Chopin as much as the next person, but when he (Copland) sits down to compose, his knowledge of other musician's compositions doesn't help much. I think he is right. Each composer is on their own when it comes to finding their own voice, and many composers, even if technically skilled and highly successful in commercial scoring, never find their own voice. Theory won't help with that but it will sharpen your listening skills immensely.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Leon Willett said:


> Hello! I want to offer my two cents because there is a lot of confusion (understandably, given the books!) about what counterpoint IS, and how it differs from harmony.
> 
> HARMONY is when a bunch of voices share the same contour, or a contour that is similar enough that the listener bunches up all those lines into one big fat "thing". To a listener it sounds like a fattened melody, where the lower lines are just "shadows" of the top line. For example, a string pad, as an accompaniment, is just a very peaceful melody with slow shadows. Perhaps those shadows go all the way down to the bass
> 
> COUNTERPOINT is when the listener has the distinct impression that there is more than one important "thing" in the music. A typical example would be two melodies, with different contours, going at once. If a pop singer makes a melody, and then a horn section "answers", with a distinct contour, that feels to the listener like another "thing" popped out of the music in that moment, then this is counterpoint.
> 
> An interesting detail: many books and courses (wrongly) propose that contrary motion is the king of counterpoint. In fact, oblique motion is the king of counterpoint! This is where one voice holds a note, and the other wiggles around. For example, first species counterpoint is just 2 voice harmony. Sorry, books, you got that one wrong!
> 
> If it sounds like one "thing", however fat, it is harmony. If it sounds like two "things" in competition for your attention, it is counterpoint.
> 
> For example: in the Joe Hisaishi example above, when the strings kick off the piece, this is harmony. All the string lines have a similar enough contour (a good example of how contrary motion will not help a line "detach" much). It is basically a melody with a whole bunch of delicious interval flavours hanging off it. Harmony!
> 
> However, when the woodwinds "answer" at 0:14, a new "thing" pops out of the music. I call these things objects. When the woodwinds come in, the number of objects in the music has gone from one to two. This is counterpoint! Notice how the second object, carried by the woodwinds is clearly "detached" from the first by having lots of oblique motion; a distinct contour. Counterpoint!
> 
> Finally, the whole point of all this is that you identify what you want (what you are "hearing" as a composer), and achieve it! If you are desiring a nice fat pad, or a melody with some delicious "shadows", use harmony. If you are desiring two or more distinct objects, use counterpoint!
> 
> Good luck boys and grills.




I think a simpler explanation is that harmony is about simultaneous voices and their progressions to other simultaneities and counterpoint is about melodic movement of each voice. 

Even a 4-part, choral-style texture, which on the surface is about chords progressing in time, is made up of 4 distinct melodies.

Though oblique motion evolved first (Organum in the 9th and 10th centuries), my ear has always rejoiced in contrary motion because the individuality of lines is more pronounced. I think of good counterpoint as like a good marriage: Each partner retains their own individuality, their own uniqueness, yet the bond through love creates harmony, cooperation and union between the two people.


----------



## robgb

Ale8ory said:


> In my opinion that's like saying how can I learn to play piano without a teacher?


I learned to play piano without a teacher. Guitar, too. I would imagine there are a lot of people who've done the same.


----------



## Ale8ory

robgb said:


> I learned to play piano without a teacher. Guitar, too. I would imagine there are a lot of people who've done the same.



Of course you are right. I didn't mean to imply that one could not. As one who has studied piano and counterpoint with teachers, in my (obviously biased) opinion I just think it's easier and possibly more efficient with a good teacher. But everyone is different.


----------



## robgb

Ale8ory said:


> Of course you are right. I didn't mean to imply that one could not. As one who has studied piano and counterpoint with teachers, in my (obviously biased) opinion I just think it's easier and possibly more efficient with a good teacher. But everyone is different.


Didn't mean to jump on you, but as someone who doesn't read or write music, learned harmony and counterpoint through osmosis and didn't even know what it was called until long after I'd been doing it, I get a little touchy when people suggest that formal teaching is the "better" path to learning.


----------



## Joram

I think it is better to find a counterpoint teacher. you have the advantage that you can discuss decisions and learn much quicker in different styles.


----------



## Dave Connor

It isn't that it can't be done but the efficiency of self study compared to instruction by a practitioner would easily skew toward the latter in most cases I am sure. I would like to see some counterpoint from the self studied to see if it is true species counterpoint. Someone here suggested that _answer phrases_ to a vocal by an instrument within a song context is _counterpoint _which of course is not. The contrapuntal forms are very strict, tight forms (why we like them) so what you often find today are textures that may have a counter melodic line here and there. Still, doing that that kind of thing well is precisely the reason to study traditional counterpoint.


----------



## thesteelydane

I am largely self taught in counterpoint, and that's somewhat deliberate. I began by going through Fux, and then I worked through the Kennan book on 18th century tonal counterpoint (still at it actually, I work slowly, analyse all the examples in depth, and write something with each new technique I learn). The latter is far more relevant to a modern composer, so I would start there if I was to advice someone. There's no question in my mind, that if you want to learn - and become fluent in - strict counterpoint, you are way better off with a good teacher. That was never my goal though. I am interested in how Bach wrote his music, but I'm not interested in sounding like Bach. I want to sound like me, but I also want to be in control of the horisontal aspect of my music, I want to write interesting inner lines, and most of all I want to be in control of dissonance. The latter to me is the essence of counterpoint: controlling dissonance. My thinking was that if I teach myself the basics, learn the rules, learn what they sound like when applied, I will have a solid ground to develop my own sound on. And even if I misinterpret or misuse a rule in a traditional sense, but like the way it sounds, well....then that's now part of my sound. By teaching and guiding myself through the maze, I won't get any closer to being able to write period correct counterpoint, but I might just pick up a technique and use it in a way it was never intended to produce something that's genuine, and that's a worthwhile endeavour to me. I hope that makes sense - the point is that by teaching myself, my "mistakes" aren't mistakes, they become part of me searching for my own voice as a composer.

Of course, if you can find a teacher that undestands the rules, but will show you how to bend them to achieve your goals, then you are in luck. I have just started Alain Mayrand's course, and he is definitely one of those rare teachers who can do that. Personally though, I'm glad I worked through the Kennan book. I like to understand not just the how but also the why of things, and where they come from.

The unintended side effect of all this is the enormous amount of analysis I've done of Bach's works, and the detrimental effect it has had on my self confidence. I have always believed that everything can be learned, that there is no such thing as genius, that's it's just a question of figuring out how to learn it, but when studying Bach I often get the "why even bother, I'm useless" thought. The amount of genius at display in even just the simplest two part invention boggles the mind. I am in awe of the man, and his complete and utter control of every aspect of music. The way he can spin a simple little motif into a full composition, with every note traceable back to the motif, and always writing interesting and varied, yet mutually cohesive lines in all voices is just incredible. I could practice for a 1000 years and never achieve anything close to that. Or maybe if I had learned counterpoint with a teacher it would have unlocked some secret eureka door that's been staring me in the face all along. Who knows. Above all I'm happy I'm not the only one interested in counterpoint, I'm so sick of endlessly repetitive string ostinatos with brass swells and taikos. Rant over....


----------



## robgb

Dave Connor said:


> I would like to see some counterpoint from the self studied to see if it is true species counterpoint.


You could and should make the same request of people who have studied it. Just because they studied it doesn't mean they're capable to applying what they've learned to their own music. As always, the results are all the matter.


----------



## ken c

I'm also self studied in counterpoint, Personally I got a lot out of Piston's Counterpoint book as well as reading through pretty much all of Bach's keyboard music.


----------



## douggibson

robgb said:


> You could and should make the same request of people who have studied it. Just because they studied it doesn't mean they're capable to applying what they've learned to their own music. As always, the results are all the matter.



Sure, no problem at all. I posted one above, and there are a few others below.

However, I really must caution one thing (and I am only speaking for myself and my opinion) I think "gunslinger" - I'm from Arizona- competitions are totally stupid, and go counter to the ideal ethos of this forum and music. I am only here to help, and seek help to learn from others, not measure the size of who has the largest contrapuntal penis.

I think the only reason (again speaking personally) to learn counterpoint is the exploration of the subject inspires you, makes you curious, and the benefits it provides to your craft make you love the devotion you have to music composition. If a synth gives that to you, or a guitar solo, or even a single note..... then great. I am not advocating any aesthetic superiority here. As you will see on the previous page I even questioned the OP on why they even want to pursue this. When one is not writing for a client, on spec, to a brief for a gig, then why not be as personal, honest with yourself and work the musical ideas that give YOU energy and inspiration?

I only posted my original question because music is endless. You learn one thing, three to ten things reveal themselves that one had no idea about. My opinion is if one is having a sandpaper going through the butt-cheeks experience studying counterpoint, go out and try and cure cancer, or make yourself a lot of money. I can't imagine pursing music composition for any other reason than ones own desire, and curiosity to do so. (I know there are other reasons, and that is valid. I am again just speaking for myself, and no way claiming this is the "right" and only reason. You are not going to pick up chicks or become wealthy with 18th century counterpoint studies.... well I never did at least.)

Crab Canon: This example you play the piece, then turn the paper up-side down and play back wards. This is what you will hear at first. The piece can also be played by two people at the same time. One reading "right-side-up" the other up-side-down. After a brief pause the midi will play back the piece as a duet. (score below. Yes, Cannon is spelled incorrectly)



Example 2: This is the ending of a longer piece for orchestra. Similar in nature to the example I posted above


Example 3: This is a live performance of my piece at the Juilliard school. While not a strict contrapuntal piece I used canons and imitation throughout. I am happy to post fugues as in the first example, but I thought would post actual compositions.










]


----------



## robgb

LOL, I'm not suggesting a shootout. Beyond a few basics, judging the quality of music is an entirely subjective endeavor. I'm simply saying that no one should be singling out self-taught musicians to prove themselves.


----------



## Ale8ory

douggibson said:


> Sure, no problem at all. I posted one above, and there are a few others below.
> 
> However, I really must caution one thing (and I am only speaking for myself and my opinion) I think "gunslinger" - I'm from Arizona- competitions are totally stupid, and go counter to the ideal ethos of this forum and music. I am only here to help, and seek help to learn from others, not measure the size of who has the largest contrapuntal penis.
> 
> I think the only reason (again speaking personally) to learn counterpoint is the exploration of the subject inspires you, makes you curious, and the benefits it provides to your craft make you love the devotion you have to music composition. If a synth gives that to you, or a guitar solo, or even a single note..... then great. I am not advocating any aesthetic superiority here. As you will see on the previous page I even questioned the OP on why they even want to pursue this. When one is not writing for a client, on spec, to a brief for a gig, then why not be as personal, honest with yourself and work the musical ideas that give YOU energy and inspiration?
> 
> I only posted my original question because music is endless. You learn one thing, three to ten things reveal themselves that one had no idea about. My opinion is if one is having a sandpaper going through the butt-cheeks experience studying counterpoint, go out and try and cure cancer, or make yourself a lot of money. I can't imagine pursing music composition for any other reason than ones own desire, and curiosity to do so. (I know there are other reasons, and that is valid. I am again just speaking for myself, and no way claiming this is the "right" and only reason. You are not going to pick up chicks or become wealthy with 18th century counterpoint studies.... well I never did at least.)
> 
> Crab Canon: This example you play the piece, then turn the paper up-side down and play back wards. This is what you will hear at first. The piece can also be played by two people at the same time. One reading "right-side-up" the other up-side-down. After a brief pause the midi will play back the piece as a duet. (score below. Yes, Cannon is spelled incorrectly)
> 
> 
> 
> Example 2: This is the ending of a longer piece for orchestra. Similar in nature to the example I posted above
> 
> 
> Example 3: This is a live performance of my piece at the Juilliard school. While not a strict contrapuntal piece I used canons and imitation throughout. I am happy to post fugues as in the first example, but I thought would post actual compositions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]




Could you clarify? My understanding is this is a mirror canon. I'm writing crab canons with my teacher right now (haven't done a mirror yet) and I believe a crab canon has the leader played in retrograde as the follower in the second half. In your crab canon the pitches change. Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly? 

Regardless of the relevance of a teacher, I can say that studying counterpoint has been a revelation. The challenge is to make each assignment musical, and to have interesting melodic lines that fulfill the requirements of good technique. Why not sharpen ones tools? To be honest I'd rather do this than obsess about the sound of a sampled oboe (although I do). And for me having someone to say that it could have been better realized in a way I hadn't thought of is priceless.

Here's one of my short crabs:


----------



## Dave Connor

robgb said:


> You could and should make the same request of people who have studied it. Just because they studied it doesn't mean they're capable to applying what they've learned to their own music. As always, the results are all the matter.


 I think you missed my point - understandably - so I will explain. I am not suggesting that anyone who studies with a teacher is automatically going to do it well any more then I am suggesting that someone who self study's is going to do it poorly. What I did say is that I don't think most people will do better on their own. With the numerous descriptions of what counterpoint actually is here and some saying they learned it on their own, the only way I can possibly know the success of self study is to see or hear an example of it. As you said, _the results are all that matter_. My interest is the same as yours: the results. I'm not asking to see an example of someone who studied because that is the route I'm advocating - knowing full well the results will vary as in any student teacher relationship (i.e. one's best hope is private instruction in most cases.)

The classic analogy is the question of how many players in quality orchestras today are self taught. The answer is: _a fraction of a fraction_. Counterpoint is a subject of real complexity and those who have practiced it well have generally been voracious students of it. That includes a ton of self study but only after a period of learning with a teacher. There are exceptions and very well could be some here.


----------



## Dave Connor

robgb said:


> I'm simply saying that no one should be singling out self-taught musicians to prove themselves.


As if I or anyone here is in the habit of that. You have left out not just the context of this thread but the spirit of this forum,_ Musicians helping other musicians. _Look at the title of the thread. Someone is asking about learning the most complex form of music ever devised… and without a teacher. I suppose one can study medicine with the same hope but you won't be licensed in this hemisphere. If someone who has studied and taught it for years says, _you will do better with a teacher _based upon real experience, where is the crime in that? If someone else comes along and says, _sure, you can learn it all by yourself. _Again, where is the crime in seeing an example of such a rare thing? Particularly in giving crucial advice to someone asking for it? You needn't make a moral case out of guarding against bad advice.


----------



## Leon Willett

Many examples of counterpoint (in this thread, and all over the place in general!) have a baroque sound to them, which in my opinion scares people away from counterpoint, because very few people actually want to sound like that. Many people have the understandable notion: "what the hell is the point of counterpoint? It just makes the music sound old!"

Also, many of the exercises done in traditional counterpoint courses are pointless. Crabs or mirrors for example. They are pointless in that a listener cannot hear the fact they are crabs or mirrors. So, unless you have musical goals aside from "how it sounds" (in which case, wow!), they really are actually pointless.

So what IS the point of counterpoint then? Well, when you're sitting there composing and you have a desire for there to be more than one melody at once... you are having a desire for counterpoint. In that moment, counterpoint is useful. That's the ACTUAL POINT of counterpoint.

The point of counterpoint is NOT to make some music that if you put it upside down you can also play it backwards in a parallel universe with gravity reversed and spacetime stretched and looped back on itself and 3 black holes. Or to make a clever upside-down imitation, retrograde that no listener has ever noticed (because they can't!).

Also, In the interest of offsetting the fact that counterpoint education in general perpetuates this awful impression that counterpoint=baroque style, here is a short excerpt where I used counterpoint in a piece. Sorry for the untidiness. I scribble. This particular example is a 3-voice counterpoint with accompaniment.

Again: the point of counterpoint is that when you actually have an innocent desire for more than one melody to be there, in your music, in day-to-day REAL composing, you can get your desire met, as an artist! For example, I have never before or since actually wanted 3 melodies to happen at once. It's pretty busy! But that particular time I apparently wanted it, and counterpoint helped me get what I wanted.

Cheers

PS: some people are still claiming that contrary motion is a good provider or independence to melodies. It's actually only slightly more independent-sounding that parallel motion, because the rhythms are right on top of each other. What gives these three melodies (or any melodies, for that matter) their independence from each-other is mainly oblique motion (the king of independence, no matter what the books keep on saying!) and correct use of timbre in the orchestra to delimit the 3 objects to the ear. (like color in a painting).







[AUDIOPLUS=http://vi-control.net/community/attachments/counterpoint-that-has-a-point-mp3.7456/][/AUDIOPLUS]


----------



## robgb

Dave Connor said:


> As if I or anyone here is in the habit of that. You have left out not just the context of this thread but the spirit of this forum,_ Musicians helping other musicians. _Look at the title of the thread. Someone is asking about learning the most complex form of music ever devised… and without a teacher. I suppose one can study medicine with the same hope but you won't be licensed in this hemisphere. If someone who has studied and taught it for years says, _you will do better with a teacher _based upon real experience, where is the crime in that? If someone else comes along and says, _sure, you can learn it all by yourself. _Again, where is the crime in seeing an example of such a rare thing? Particularly in giving crucial advice to someone asking for it? You needn't make a moral case out of guarding against bad advice.


I highly doubt that it's a rare thing for people to be self-taught. In fact, I'd say the majority of musicians are probably self-taught. So why is saying you can learn it yourself bad advice? When you say things like that, you're simply perpetuating the myth that you can't learn without a teacher.

I'm a self taught novelist. Never went to school to learn plot, character, structure, dialogue, etc. Never took a literature class in my life. Yet I make my living writing novels. Most of my novelist friends are the same way. The only litmus test we have to pass is the final product we put out to the public. 

When someone says something like, "I'd like to see examples of counterpoint by someone who is self-taught" as if the self-taught person has something to prove, that's a bit of a slap in the face to the majority of musicians out there.

Am I a bit touchy about this? Maybe. I'll certainly cop to that. But I've been hearing all my life that "you can't do this without that" and it's gotten a little tiring.


----------



## Leon Willett

robgb said:


> Am I a bit touchy about this? Maybe. I'll certainly cop to that. But I've been hearing all my life that "you can't do this without that" and it's gotten a little tiring.



Here's the truth of it man! There are the following options: 

a) You never have the desire to have more than one melody at once in your music. You don't need counterpoint. 
b) You do have the desire for more than one melody sometimes, and are ALREADY good at doing that. You do not need to learn counterpoint, because you're already good at it. 
c) You sometimes want to have more than one melody at once in your music, but it never quite works out the way you want. You should learn counterpoint. You can do it on your own, or someone can help you (a teacher). Both are fine. In some cases a teacher will speed up the process. 

Cheers!


----------



## pinki

Wow that Shostakovich and Castelnuovo Tedesco!!!! Beautiful Beautiful...and also your piece Doug. What a fab thread!


----------



## Sebastianmu

Fun fact: Did you guys know that Mario Castelnuovo Tedesco was John Williams' composition teacher?


----------



## pinki

Ha that's great....So JW was taught by a composer who loved the guitar and wrote over 100 works for it including a concerto and 24 fugues for guitar duo.


----------



## DHG

I think the best way to learn counterpoint is to make it fun. I haven't spent much time since music college writing 18th century style counterpoint as it doesn't have much bearing on what I write but every now and then I like to go back and emulate that sort of music purely for fun and to re-open my ears (see the little vid below). It all helps. 

Those dry, arid fugues and inventions many of us pipe out as students sometimes feel a bit pointless. My harmony and counterpoint tutor told me to stop writing them as exercises and start figuring out how to use counterpoint to drive music to a climax. I remember him looking at my first one and muttering "Good god man, give it the kiss of life at least". After roaring with laughter I went away and decided to try and look on it from a musical perspective rather than as an intellectual exercise. Getting together with a few friends to try things out in return for plying them with beer really helped too!


----------



## Ale8ory

Leon Willett said:


> Many examples of counterpoint (in this thread, and all over the place in general!) have a baroque sound to them, which in my opinion scares people away from counterpoint, because very few people actually want to sound like that. Many people have the understandable notion: "what the hell is the point of counterpoint? It just makes the music sound old!"
> 
> Also, many of the exercises done in traditional counterpoint courses are pointless. Crabs or mirrors for example. They are pointless in that a listener cannot hear the fact they are crabs or mirrors. So, unless you have musical goals aside from "how it sounds" (in which case, wow!), they really are actually pointless.
> 
> So what IS the point of counterpoint then? Well, when you're sitting there composing and you have a desire for there to be more than one melody at once... you are having a desire for counterpoint. In that moment, counterpoint is useful. That's the ACTUAL POINT of counterpoint.
> 
> The point of counterpoint is NOT to make some music that if you put it upside down you can also play it backwards in a parallel universe with gravity reversed and spacetime stretched and looped back on itself and 3 black holes. Or to make a clever upside-down imitation, retrograde that no listener has ever noticed (because they can't!).
> 
> Also, In the interest of offsetting the fact that counterpoint education in general perpetuates this awful impression that counterpoint=baroque style, here is a short excerpt where I used counterpoint in a piece. Sorry for the untidiness. I scribble. This particular example is a 3-voice counterpoint with accompaniment.
> 
> Again: the point of counterpoint is that when you actually have an innocent desire for more than one melody to be there, in your music, in day-to-day REAL composing, you can get your desire met, as an artist! For example, I have never before or since actually wanted 3 melodies to happen at once. It's pretty busy! But that particular time I apparently wanted it, and counterpoint helped me get what I wanted.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> PS: some people are still claiming that contrary motion is a good provider or independence to melodies. It's actually only slightly more independent-sounding that parallel motion, because the rhythms are right on top of each other. What gives these three melodies (or any melodies, for that matter) their independence from each-other is mainly oblique motion (the king of independence, no matter what the books keep on saying!) and correct use of timbre in the orchestra to delimit the 3 objects to the ear. (like color in a painting).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [AUDIOPLUS=http://vi-control.net/community/attachments/counterpoint-that-has-a-point-mp3.7456/][/AUDIOPLUS]




While I agree to some extent with your premise, for me the point of writing counterpoint is similar to the point of practicing scales on the piano. Or doing a crossword puzzle. Or playing chess. It's about exercising the brain and the pencil. I don't care that nobody hears the retrograde follower because I'm not writing counterpoint for anyone but myself. And I don't mind sounding baroque. Is being able to write in a baroque style so bad? Or a classical or romantic style? I've always wanted to be able to write fugues well though I doubt I'll ever be asked to write a fugue for a film. Fugal writing can still have a place in concert music, and counterpoint is still clearly useful in choral writing. 

I would argue too that it must be the combination of varying motions and rhythms that give lines independence. To say that oblique is king could be debated... maybe it is in the most basic sense.

To generalize and say that the only point to understanding counterpoint it is to use it rarely in "REAL" composition is a little narrow in my opinion. But to each his own and I don't pretend to be an expert at any of it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

According to George Monseur when I took his conducting class at Berklee, Stravinsky wrote Octet for Winds when he wanted to brush up on his counterpoint. "What does a world famous composer do when he wants to practice his counterpoint? He can't take a class," was how he put it.

It's beyond awesome, one of my favorite pieces in the history of pieces.

(Monseur is one of those people who says things you remember this ^ clearly 38 years later.)


----------



## IoannisGutevas

Finding a teacher is one thing, finding the RIGHT teacher is another. 

Every person has his own idiomatic style of learning. You can study counterpoint -or anything for that matter- with a teacher and never learn anything or hear a line from someone else that will open doorways in your learning process that you have never thought before.

Counterpoint is like solving a chess puzzle. It requires patience and dedication to learn the craft. Im a self taught musician and there are far more qualified people here to talk about music theory and counterpoint from me but you can learn whatever you want all by yourself. It just requires a lot more patience, time and practice. 

My recommendation is these books : http://www.alexanderpublishing.com/Products/The-Instant-Composer--Counterpoint-by-Fux-Home-Study-Course---Download__AU-Fux-HomeStudy.aspx . I hope you find them useful!


----------



## Dave Connor

robgb said:


> I highly doubt that it's a rare thing for people to be self-taught. In fact, I'd say the majority of musicians are probably self-taught. So why is saying you can learn it yourself bad advice? When you say things like that, you're simply perpetuating the myth that you can't learn without a teacher.


That isn't what I said though. I said it's a rare thing to learn _counterpoint _by one's self due to it's uniqueness and complexity. The apprentice/student relationship is ancient and well proven. You can go out and try and build a violin on your own or you can learn from a successful practitioner. What is the best, most efficient and most likely to assist the student? (i.e. what would you advise a young guy that wants to learn that skill?) Sure one guy might get it right but what about the thousands of others just starting out? Counterpoint is a rational, scientific, endeavor the same as numerous others. Due to it's difficulty, someone learning it on their own begs the same question as learning anything else which is to ask for a demonstration of the knowledge applied. Why? Because all the greats learned it from their teachers. Even the geniuses Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. I'm sure you're not suggesting studying in the same manner as these giants is bad advice.


----------



## Dave Connor

Nick Batzdorf said:


> According to George Monseur when I took his conducting class at Berklee, Stravinsky wrote Octet for Winds when he wanted to brush up on his counterpoint. "What does a world famous composer do when he wants to practice his counterpoint? He can't take a class," was how he put it.
> 
> It's beyond awesome, one of my favorite pieces in the history of pieces.
> 
> (Monseur is one of those people who says things you remember this clearly 38 years later.)


The interesting thing about this post Nick is that with Stravinsky, the name of his teacher Rimsky-Korsakov immediately comes to mind (who know doubt got into counterpoint with his later-famous student) and that you yourself can't help but mention one of _your_ teachers and the hugely positive impact he had on you. Much of the point people are making here: the value of learning with expert guidance and discipline.


----------



## all ears

This is one of the most interesting threads I have seen here in a long time. Thanks to everyone contributing!! I still feel slightly confused, though, because most of what I've read in this thread does not quite fit together with what I so far understood to be meant by the term "counterpoint" in the context of, say, present-day film music.

One thing I took away from Mike Verta's masterclass on the subject is that, in a modern context, counterpoint usually takes the form of an answering melody in a second voice while a first voice pauses. (Sincere apology to Mike if I misunderstood what he said.) That, of course, would have very little to do with species counterpoint as described in most previous posts here as well as in the books I've seen. - Unless you looked at a countermelody as a somewhat lengthy oblique motion against a held note. Is that how the - seemingly - different concepts of counterpoint fit together?

@ Leon Willett: Just wanted to say that the snippet of your work that you posted is truly amazing. Any chance to hear (and see) more of it?
_Edit: _Never mind, I found it in your blog on your website. - Fantastic work!!


----------



## Dave Connor

all ears, you are indeed all ears. My request to see an example of _self taught counterpoint _was to partially confirm the semantics here which as you observed are rather faulty or inconsistent. The 1st example posted however indeed pleasantly confirmed that it was in the neighborhood of traditionally defined counterpoint (but also confirmed that a teacher would immediately point out some glaring weaknesses.) Hence the value and expeditious nature of private study which is an argument _for_ the learner and not a dagger of humiliation aimed at the self taught as some seem to suggest.

In short, yes - the description of a voice pausing while another takes over is obviously erroneous as there is nothing to _counter _in a stationary voice. A secondary melodic line does not constitute _counterpoint _per se but more likely a temporary employing of a type of contrapuntal writing. A study of counterpoint is what makes one particularly effective at the latter though.


----------



## Leon Willett

all ears said:


> I still feel slightly confused, though, because most of what I've read in this thread does not quite fit together with what I so far understood to be meant by the term "counterpoint" in the context of, say, present-day film music.
> 
> One thing I took away from Mike Verta's masterclass on the subject is that, in a modern context, counterpoint usually takes the form of an answering melody in a second voice while a first voice pauses.



That's right! Yep, totally agree with Mike! "Pause" is perhaps not the best word; I would suggest "is holding a longer note"  Oblique motion: when one voice holds a note, and the other wiggles around. 

I think the best definition of counterpoint is: *when the listener has the impression of hearing more than one melody at the same time*. For example, a slow string pad may, strictly-speaking, have 4 "melodies" inside it, but it doesn't sound like counterpoint. Why? Not enough oblique motion. The four lines begin and end together, move together, and basically have no independence. So the listener hears one "thing". A pad! Your brain delimits this single object (with 4 components inside it) in the same way you look at a bush and see a bush, instead of 734 separate leaves. 

Obviously, and still contrary to what a lot of people are saying, even in this very thread, it is oblique motion (one voice moves while the other is holding, even if just for a moment) that gives the listen the impression of counterpoint. If this were not the case, all string pads would sound like 4 simultaneous but separate things, and they don't. Any kind of simultaneous motion is very low on the independence spectrum. Does a strummed guitar sound like 6 voice counterpoint? Even when the note on one of the strings moved up, and the note on another adjacent string moved down? No, it sounds like one chunky thing. But you CAN do a 2 voice counterpoint on a guitar... you just need lots of oblique motion 

It's hard for me to imagine that yet more examples are needed of this plain fact! I'm sorry, but the books (all of them! I should know, I have them all!) are simply wrong on that point. Fux was not a composer, he was a musicologist that wrote his book 100 years after Palestrina and Victoria and all those people. When people tell you that contrary motion gives the sound of independence between two voices, what you are hearing is a parroting of consensus. Consensus is not truth, it's just a large group of people that all think the same thing. This happens sometimes when a person puts ink onto some paper and then prints lots of copies. 

Let's say you take "happy birthday". Now put another melody right on top of it, keeping rhythm exactly the same. Heck, knock yourself out, use contrary motion a LOT. Go to town on that freakin contrary motion man!!! Go bananas on the contrary!!!! Sound like two melodies? Nope! It sounds like happy birthday, fattened by a shadow voice. Use contrary motion all you like, it will NOT give you a sense of counterpoint. It is a little bit more independent than parallel, but not much. 

OK, now scrap that silly shadow voice and compose a line that comes in EARLY... before happy birthday begins... then it settles in to a long note or two while while "happy birthday" is at its most active... and then gets busier in those moments when "happy birthday" is on its longer notes ("youuuuuu"). Congratulations you have yourself some counterpoint. 

Watch your intervals during any simultaneous motion (parallel/contrary/similar) between your two lines though! Those intervals will pop out of the music noticeably, so make sure their sound pleases you! Also, if any dark or bitter intervals arise, even obliquely... consider how you want to land after the "storm"... a common way to relax after this dissonance "storm" is to land on a cozy, warm interval like a 3rd or 6th... but it's your choice actually! 

There is more to it than that, but this is a decent "nutshell" of what counterpoint is in practice. I wish I could type out how to get good at counterpoint but it does take some studying actually  

It's not rocket science though. It really is just more than one melody at once. People who say it's incredibly hard or takes years to master are talking about the pointless parts (sudoku, in-audible retrograde brain exercises with no result in the realm of actual sound). If you're interested in counterpoint as a composer, please avoid teachers who get you to solve puzzles that have no basis in sound. Imagine an architect learning to design a house that looks the same if you flip it upside down. What a shame to spend that valuable time doing something so silly! Please study the important parts and throw away the pointless ones! 

As an artist, when you are composing, YOU get to decide what you want. If you want a second melody to really pop out of your music, you're going to need some counterpoint technique (and, the way I teach it, lots of oblique motion, hehehe). If what you want is not a second melody but just a shadow voice that fattens the leader voice and delivers some delicious interval flavours along the way, then do that! But that would be harmony, not counterpoint


----------



## Dave Connor

From wikipedia: Counterpoint generally involves _musical lines with strongly independent identities._ Counterpoint has been used to designate a voice or even an entire composition. In each era, contrapuntally organized music writing has been subject to rules—sometimes strict ones. Chords are the simultaneous soundings of notes; whereas harmonic, "vertical" features are considered secondary and almost incidental when counterpoint is the predominant textural element. Counterpoint focuses on _melodic interaction_—only secondarily on the harmonies produced by that interaction. (Italics are mine)

Leon, I must confess I don't see a single melodic line against a held (non melodic line) as _counterpoint_ but rather the antithesis of it. If the first violins have a melody above the 2nds which are holding a single note, this is what you are identifying as a contrapuntal texture? As opposed to say a Bach four voice fugue where all four voices are independent which I think you are saying is not heard as a contrapuntal texture?

Don't really mean to be contentious and not really vested in debates like this. These definitions are curious to me is all. My interest is for young guys who want to learn counterpoint to study with teachers such as yourself : )


----------



## pinki

Well this is coming down to a semantic argument so I'm not sure of what use it is beyond semantics...Leon if that's the way you want to define it that's fine. It's just not how lots of other people do! I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm curious as to what you define the Hindemith or Shostakovich posted earlier in this thread as though?


----------



## Kardon

pinki said:


> Wow that Shostakovich and Castelnuovo Tedesco!!!! Beautiful Beautiful...and also your piece Doug. What a fab thread!


The Shostakovich Fugue #7 is amazing, and interestingly I heard at least 3 places with harmonic and rhythmic counterpoint elements similar to ELP-Keith Emerson's Trilogy, and Fugue (both from the 1972 Trilogy album). Emerson never had formal music training other than piano lessons, but listened to a great deal of music to learn his craft and composition styles. That included classical and jazz, which is evident on those two pieces as well. I'm sure he broke many rules, but his Fugue is also amazing, with a little Greg Lake bass thrown in too. I used to play (mostly practice) Trilogy many years ago. I think I'll stumble through the Shostakovich and learn something new (counterpoint lesson included).


----------



## gyprock

I agree with Leon that you need oblique motion for counterpoint, that is why the essence of counterpoint doesn't really kick in until you start studying 2, 3 or 4 notes against 1 note. This "1 note" can be considered the sustained voice. It may be short (e.g. 1/8 note) or it may be long (e.g. whole note). It can also be in either the top line or the bottom. In other words, there will always be a sustained note against which other notes are moving. The skill is learning how to handle the moving notes e.g. are they unaccented such as arpeggios or passing notes or neighbour notes etc? Are they accented such as appogiuaturas or suspensions etc. Alain's course is really good at explaining this and when to break from the strict rules of counterpoint 

When 1: 1 (note against note) is studied (prior to the above), the objective is to understand how to move between the goalposts that act as scaffolding for the previously mentioned figuration. These goalposts are usually 3rd, 6ths, 5ths or octaves. The main rule is to be careful how to approach the 5ths or octaves. Tradition states that these intervals should not be approached by similar motion.

The main use of counterpoint for me is to a) check the intervals between the main melody and the bass note of the chord progression to see if I have too many 5ths or octaves and how they are approached and b) help in creating an independent counter melody to the main melody. So far, I haven't had a need to go beyond these two applications although now that I have completed Alain's course, I will attempt some more complex applications.


----------



## novaburst

I remember a few years ago I ask for some musical help on this forum, 

What I got was more than I received in uni.
It was so helpful and gave me such an understanding on musical composition,

You guys are absolutely the best 

You really know how to help people with the understanding of music.


----------



## all ears

Thank you very much, Leon and Dave, for your replies. I hope you don't mind me saying that the disagreement about the meaning of counterpoint in modern-day composition at least shows me that I'm not completely stupid for being confused about what people mean when talking about counterpoint today. There clearly is no one answer and it depends on whom you ask.

If I may ask another thing, which has puzzled me over the years:
Take a look at 6:26 of Morricone's well-known piece "Gabriel's Oboe" - the version with choir.

Two highly independent melodies (one of them by the choir) play at the same time. Independently to the point that, for me anyway, they are slightly dissatisfying because if it weren't for the percussion, I'd have a hard time figuring out where the downbeats are. Can that be considered as counterpoint, or is it just a superposition of two melodies as an effect? And then, maybe, if one analyzed the score hard enough, note-by-note, there may even be some elements following Fux's principles. (At this point, I woudn't know.)

Likewise, there are lots of instances of fanfare-type writings that have always made me wonder if one should have counterpoint in mind when trying to analyze them. Listen to the very beginning of John Williams' "Immigration and Building".


A piece I highly admire, by the way. Would you agree that it has both "kinds" of counterpoint (1. A line moving in "time slots" where another voice is temporarily holding and 2. Two lines moving simultaneously)? The second type between trumpets and the first type between trumpets and horns?

I'd be highly grateful for any comments on this!!

Sorry to those who feel that this is turning into too much of a debate on definition of counterpoint. However, I feel that, thanks to this thread, I'm getting closer to understanding today's role of counterpoint than I've ever been. And IN FACT, to mee too, all this serves the purpose of deciding whether to go out and try to find a teacher to study it with.
And now I will stop hijacking this thread


----------



## Leon Willett

Dave Connor said:


> From wikipedia: Counterpoint generally involves _musical lines with strongly independent identities._



That's right! And, I'm sure you'll agree, that two melodies with the same rhythm have a lot of trouble establishing a strongly independent identity, right? You need the two lines to keep on rhythmically "dodging" each other. Oblique motion! 



Dave Connor said:


> If the first violins have a melody above the 2nds which are holding a single note, this is what you are identifying as a contrapuntal texture?



Ahhhh! No, I mean real melodies, each good in its own right... but that also *dodge* each other rhythmically. 

Shostakovich works hard in his fugue to keep the two melodies from "bumping into" each other too much, rhythmically. Check it out: 






If he didn't keep up a lot of oblique motion, it would stop sounding like too melodies. Since his artistic intent was to give the listener the impression of two melodies, he used lots of oblique motion. The two melodies dodge each other as much as they can. 

For example, the following doesn't sound like two melodies: 






...it sounds like one melody that has a harmonic "shadow" attached to it. The lower voice does not a strongly-separate melodic identity, even though it's using a variety of kinds of motion. Don't you think? :D 

But the following version *would* sound like two melodies. 






This actually isn't a semantic or academic argument... I'm really talking about how it sounds to a listener! Which is of course all that matters right?  

When does it sound like two melodies and when does it just sound like a thickening line? This is important stuff to understand properly, for any composer! 

Peace and love on the interwebs <3


----------



## Leon Willett

douggibson said:


> Please do let me know if I am mis-understanding you. Often reading posts I can not detect "tone" so it is entirely possible I am not following what you are getting at.



I am sorry doug! :D 

I am just poking fun at academic counterpoint in general, and my spirit is well meaning. I was not singling you out at all! 

Many young composers or students nowadays don't feel counterpoint is worth knowing. That's a shame because they won't get very good at having simultaneous melodies, which they may want from time to time. This is because of the image in their mind that counterpoint is basically just sudoku puzzles with notes. I feel this aspect of counterpoint study is damaging because it has no point sound-wise, and it scares people away from studying it. 

I am trying to offset that view by yelling and shouting to young composers: "actually, counterpoint is for when YOU, as an artist, want to have more than one melody in your music!". My suggestion is to study counterpoint but do away with the pointless bits :D

@pinki about the Hindemith and Shoshtakovich, do you want me to give some more examples of when counterpoint is happening or when it's just harmony? The key is in the impression of the listener... does it sound like two melodies or not?


----------



## novaburst

all ears said:


> Sorry to those who feel that this is turning into too much of a debate on definition of counterpoint.



I think the teaching here on this thread is very clear and done with a lot of depth and detail and I for one thank the guys who took so much time to share their talent here on this thread.

It is a shame that there can be some indifference, and I for one hope that this did not discurage those who gave there time to share there skills.

I would add if we are to say counterpoint are old and have no use in today's composition, then we can say the same about every musical skill.

A run is as old as it gets but it is still used today,
A mode is very old stuff but it is still used, and what about chords becuase they are old and been around for a long time should we look for something else to produce harmony in music.

Depending on what music you create depends on what type of skill you use, if you do not require counterpoint then don't use it or avoid it if you can,

If on the other hand your piece required counterpoint to define movement then use it it is that simple.

Remember a chord can be embellished, alternative, scales can be played differently, modes con be changed, and also counterpoint s can be used differently to the way it suits you.

Everything we learn can be superimposed and taken to a different level and that includes counterpoints.

If you do rap music or EDM music there will be little use for it

If you write orchestral sound trazks, classical, jazz, I am quite certain you will find counterpoints very beneficial.

No one person has all the answers, and you will get different versions of teaching, and definition, but is that not for us to eat what we can and leave what we can't,


----------



## Leon Willett

all ears said:


> I hope you don't mind me saying that the disagreement about the meaning of counterpoint in modern-day composition at least shows me that I'm not completely stupid for being confused about what people mean when talking about counterpoint today.



Your question is a fantastic one! And there is a traditional confusing about where harmony stops and counterpoint starts. My suggestion, today, is that the distinction become completely clear once and for all. It is a big shame for the confusion to be there, because it hurts students' motivation (why would you learn something when you don't know what it is?). 

My suggestion is: 

COUNTERPOINT is when it sounds like separate melodies happening at the same time. Two lines, two "things". 

HARMONY is when it blends up in to one "thing" as far as the listener is concerned. Many lines, one "thing". 

If you find this to be a good, satisfying definition that will help you get what you want in day-to-day composing, or learning from someone else's music, then my suggestion is that you can look at the Williams and Morricone and see for yourself when counterpoint is happening, and when harmony is happening. 

Random example: if the strings and brass seem to be helping each other to create one fat "thing"... then that's harmony going on! If two groups of people are playing in each others rhythmic "gaps" and give the impression of separate, independent things... then you have counterpoint! 

This distinction is very useful because as beginners we tend to be a bit random about the number of "things" or "objects" we create in our music. Things tend to pop out when we didn't mean it, or blend when we didn't mean it. If you think about this distinction it will help you get what you truly want, bar to bar!


----------



## Flaneurette

Music theory is mainly an after-thought. It is based upon what musicians and composers did, not what they should do. However, some things sound good together so you might want to use them too. Theory is not a law. It is a guideline.

Avoiding parallel octaves/fifths was done for practical reasons. Largely, when you do parallel fifths for human voices it is almost impossible to distinguish certain notes. It does reflect back into bass as well. So as a general rule, it was advised to avoid them when you can. It's not a law. Even J.S. Bach made use of them.


----------



## novaburst

Flaneurette said:


> Music theory is mainly an after-thought. It is based upon what musicians and composers did, not what they should do. However, some things sound good together so you might want to use them too. Theory is not a law. It is a guideline.
> 
> Avoiding parallel octaves/fifths was done for practical reasons. Largely, when you do parallel fifths for human voices it is almost impossible to distinguish certain notes. It does reflect back into bass as well. So as a general rule, it was advised to avoid them when you can. It's not a law. Even J.S. Bach made use of them.



As soon as you play the second chord in your musical piece you composition becomes theory as soon as you play a third chord now we have what is called a three chord theory ok ok just having fun 

We may not be aware of it but we use theory all the time with out thinking about it or with out being concius about it but it is still theory being used.

So in essence it would be what theory did they use to do that composition.

So there is little theory, and there is alot of theory

If I get stuck on a musical piece I will come to this forum for more musical theory, or open up a book.

Ah ha but what came first the chicken or the egg.


----------



## pinki

I think it was mentioned earlier but for me the joy of studying counterpoint is the discipline ...I _want_ rules. I find it invigorating! Of course I may or may not choose to use them in my own work, but I love _studying with_ _restrictions.
_
@Leon Willett ..since you expanded on your explanation what you said originally makes much more sense now! So no need to go any further. Thanks.


----------



## Leon Willett

@pinki I'm really glad man! The explanations and examples I've offered in this thread, while silly and flippant at times are actually from the bottom of my heart. What I want is for composers to have enough technique that they become their own favourite composers. Teaching has become such a passion for me! Perfect technique + your own unique taste = perfect music (to you). The world needs more perfect music! 

good lucccccckkkkkkkk


----------



## all ears

A big thank you also from my side. Great comments!!


----------



## Rodney Money

I absolutely love and use counterpoint all the time, especially since I am always thinking of live players and hoping that they will like their part. It absolutely kills me when my low brass have nothing but whole-note after whole-note amongst measures, so I am constantly looking for ways to improve their part making it more melodic so in turn they will be more expressive. Here's an example where I have up to 4 melodies playing at one time. I started with the trumpet melody, then decided on the chords which used a lot of suspensions and add 2's. For each time there was either a suspension or the add 2 I gave it to the horn then tied their notes together with more notes creating a countermelody. Next, I added the trombone line which accented the main notes in the chord, and lastly I used the violins in 8vas answering the trombones. All of this starts at the loud section at 1:28 after the horns' big sustained fermata. I also included the last little bit where the horns and cello starts in unison but then break away, but then unison again to finish the piece. I only showed you the parts where the countermelodies are located.






Also, you can be "sneaky" about using traditional counterpoint in the background supporting your main melodic lines such as my mallet parts starting at :57. Y'all probably didn't even notice the mallet writing while 1st listening, but it seems to come alive while looking at the score.


----------



## novaburst

@Rodney Money such a nice example.


----------



## pinki

Leon Willett said:


> @pinki I'm really glad man! The explanations and examples I've offered in this thread, while silly and flippant at times are actually from the bottom of my heart. What I want is for composers to have enough technique that they become their own favourite composers. Teaching has become such a passion for me! Perfect technique + your own unique taste = perfect music (to you). The world needs more perfect music!
> 
> good lucccccckkkkkkkk




Teaching with passion..YES! I've been thinking about what you say about oblique motion. On one level all music is counterpoint and oblique motion is indeed ubiquitous.


----------



## Rodney Money

novaburst said:


> @Rodney Money such a nice example.


Thank ya, my friend. Just trying see if I can help out a little.


----------



## Leon Willett

@Rodney Money thanks for sharing, great example! 

@pinki yes! When the oblique motion thing clicks in your mind, you can see it everywhere! Rodney's music above is a great example of this... the lines are basically playing in each other's "gaps"... but not just orchestral music... this dynamic is there in everything, even Pop music (like when the backing singers "answer" the main singer), or in electronic music too, where different elements of the music have a "here I am!" moment and pop out of the music. 

When your intention is to create the sensation of simultaneous melodies, but the lines share the same rhythm, it is a mistake in my opinion, because the brain of the listener will bunch them all up into a single perceived gesture. Yes, this can be "repaired" to some extent with extreme timbral differentiation in the orchestra. But really, the lines should have enjoyed good independence in the first place (like Rodney's example, or the Shostakovich, or the example I posted too). 

And the main "tool" that gives a line independence against others is obliqueness (not contrary or whatever). 

Finally, let's remember a trap that exists in all of this: thinking that independence is somehow better. That busy music, with many "things" is better. The truth is that both simple and busy music are equally good, so please follow your heart and only use counterpoint when that's what you are actually desiring as an artist.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Counterpoint should sound natural, unforced. It should integrate into the texture in such a way that it doesn't sound as though the composer is using a technique for the sake of the technique itself.

Here's an example of a piece that is, to a large part, contrapuntal, for 11 VSL winds:
http://vi-control.net/community/threads/windy-hop.59980/


----------



## Deleted member 422019

And here is one more, a short piano invention in 3 parts using a chromatic motive that morphs into a diatonic motive. The piece is limited to 3 parts throughout and demonstrates counterpoint as the only texture throughout the piece:

http://vi-control.net/community/threads/invention-in-three-parts.60001/

Notice that though the opening motive is chromatic, I control the balance between consonance and dissonance carefully. Dissonant does not necessarily mean chromatic, and chromatic doesn't necessarily mean dissonant. The piano is the physical-modeled piano by PianoTeq.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Flaneurette said:


> Music theory is mainly an after-thought. It is based upon what musicians and composers did, not what they should do. However, some things sound good together so you might want to use them too. Theory is not a law. It is a guideline.
> 
> Avoiding parallel octaves/fifths was done for practical reasons. Largely, when you do parallel fifths for human voices it is almost impossible to distinguish certain notes. It does reflect back into bass as well. So as a general rule, it was advised to avoid them when you can. It's not a law. Even J.S. Bach made use of them.



I have a different understanding. Parallel 5ths and octaves were avoided in the common practice period because the 5th has very little tension, the octave has none. These intervals, by their nature, often weaken the independence of melodic movement, and therefore were used very carefully. Also, another reason, is that they can have an archaic sound, reminding us of 10th and 11th century organum. Of course in the 20th century, composers began to use them differently, Bartok built chords on 5ths and used the in parallel motion. Nowadays, they are avoided if the composer doesn't want that sound, and used if the composer does...


----------



## neblix

According to Felix Salzer's _Counterpoint in Composition_ parallel 5ths and octaves are avoided because of their extreme stability. Not to think in terms that we don't like stability, but rather, excessive stability doesn't belong in a linear progression (because it halts momentum), which means it doesn't belong in a counterpoint exercise, because the point of the counterpoint exercise is to write interesting contrasting lines. Best to save the janky textural hiccups for when you're actually writing your own music.

The fifth especially, in the most basic of contrapuntal examinations (like a barebones first species set of lines), gives the impression of a tonic triad, as if you reached a tonal center; not something you want to hit prematurely in an interesting linear journey. Obviously you can if you want to, but the point is to observe what it does and why it's avoided in the education.

This is a _contrapuntal _principle, mind you, not a _general composition _one. The concern in context is establishing a sensible linearity and independence between two paths in the fabric of music. Parallel 5ths and octaves are obviously used in a lot of music, but they are used as usually as a doubling mechanism, where it's actually used simply to enhance a larger construct that's still one single line.



The intro here pretty clearly demonstrates; the motif (D E B D E) is one line that's just really dense. They're not really audible separate lines. But you say "but I can hear the notes clearly!". Sure you can, I'd be concerned if you couldn't hear them. But they're not distinguishable lines, they offer no increase in textural density and harmonic interest (well... maybe a tiny bit of harmonic interest, from the 5th specifically). It's simply a timbre enhancement for the line (think of it more like an orchestration technique, or even sound design).

If you're clever, you might realize you can write two lines in perfect counterpoint and double each line with perfect fifths. It will sound kinda wild, but it's still perfect two-part counterpoint; it's the same two lines you had before, you essentially just modified the timbre of each one.

Of course, these timbre/orchestration considerations MATTER in general composition, a lot. Register, resonance, etc. But counterpoint is a lens of music that focuses on interaction between moving tones, the combination of satisfying linearity and harmony into one philosophy. It's just one piece of the whole picture. Arguably the most important one, but hey, it's all subjective!


----------



## douggibson

Rodney Money said:


> In college I purposely wrote a brass fanfare all in parallel 5ths just to mess with my music theory professors. The brass teachers loved it, and my composition teacher was proud of me for my little "rebellious statement."



It happens every year. A long tradition of this.


----------



## Rodney Money

douggibson said:


> It happens every year. A long tradition of this.



Then I'm in good company.


----------



## Ron Kords

dannydawiz said:


> I'm confident with a lot of things in music. Counterpoint is NOT one of them.
> 
> I learned up to first species with the help of someone on the internet 4 years ago but I found it really difficult. He basically just gave me a cantus and had me fill out a bass melody point per point underneath that cantus. Meanwhile I just followed all the rules of avoiding parallel octaves/fifths and etc..
> 
> I feel like this approach is impractical though. I can't possibly believe that bach put THIS much conscious thought into his counterpoint. The dude could literally improvise fugues according to legend.
> 
> So what the heck should I do to learn it? I've been thinking about transcribing a bunch of stuff. For those of you who are good at counterpoint how did you get there and what's your thought process like?


Hi Danny,

A nice little exercise....

Take a common tune. Happy birthday....

Add a baseline, single note per bar only. Add a middle part, single note per bar only.

Then try again, three notes per bar.

Try again, double/harmonise all melody notes...

Try above in minor key...

Then try it with a more 'difficult' tune....

Main, thing, have fun don't worry about rules. Your ears will tell you why para fifths aren't always popular 

Bach is great (obv), but studying and emulating that as a beginner is going to be heavy going. Kinda like learning to drive in an F1 car!!!

Good luck...


----------



## blakeklondike

dannydawiz said:


> Thanks a lot. Your thoughts really help put things into perspective.
> 
> I know this might not be bach style but I REALLY love this kind of counterpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> I just noticed the contrary motion between the melody and the bass and how awesome it sounded as the main theme.
> 
> Oh! And 0:16 is also one of my favorite themes here. Once again I know it's not traditional and might be a bad example of counterpoint. (I'm not really sure) But this stuff sounds really awesome and if I could incorporate that sort of stuff in my music I definitely would.



This music is great! What is his story?


----------



## GNP

Haha. You NEED a teacher for counterpoint. Trust me, I had no idea what the fuck I was doing!

Well after 3 semesters from basic to advanced counterpoint and 11 years later, I still have no idea what I'm doing. But at least I know what rules I'm deliberately breaking!


----------



## ProfoundSilence

Ahh 3 year bump because someone liked a clip lol


----------



## zoixx

I'm happy for that like. Excellent information on counterpoint here, big thanks to mr. Leon Willett!


----------



## José Herring

dannydawiz said:


> Thanks a lot. Your thoughts really help put things into perspective.
> 
> I know this might not be bach style but I REALLY love this kind of counterpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> I just noticed the contrary motion between the melody and the bass and how awesome it sounded as the main theme.
> 
> Oh! And 0:16 is also one of my favorite themes here. Once again I know it's not traditional and might be a bad example of counterpoint. (I'm not really sure) But this stuff sounds really awesome and if I could incorporate that sort of stuff in my music I definitely would.



It's an old thread I know but I thought I'd chime in. 

I'm kind of the odd ball as I never really fully believed in counterpoint in the Fux style which is what I was taught in my many years in music school. But later I found out that ideas of counterpoint lead to the infinitely more useful practice of chord voicing and voice leading. By the time you get out of the early baroque era you'll find that the ideas of counterpoint as detailed by Fux even by his time where not that practical beyond having a way for the Churches to control parallel organum and dissonances in church music.

The examples that you posted above are a study in chord voicing and voiceleading and that's what you're going after. The harmonious combination of tones and the smoothest way to go from chord to chord know as chord voicing and voiceleading respectively.


----------

