![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The article states:
Where's the Locrean mode? Did the writer just forget it, or was it not used? If it was indeed not in use, could someone please edit the article to explain why? Henre 21:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Noetica- What is an organizing principle? Wouldn't a technique be more than an organizing principle, as I'd assume an organizing principle is one type of technique? - Hyacinth 23:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this word in the introduction, but not being a musician I don't know what it means. There is no article for it on Wikipedia, the dictionary draws a blank and Google returns what mainly look like misspellings of contour. Is countour a spelling mistake? If not, could a knowledgeable person please write an article on it and turn the word into a wikilink? John Dalton 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
An anon is persistently adding the following:
This word, as of right now, gets exactly three google hits which are not on Wikipedia itself. It appears to be a recent coinage by one person who has written one paper promoting it (one of the hits), and is also the domain name for a website by the same person.
I have removed this paragraph several times since any additions need to be terms already in standard usage, in conformance with our policy that everything needs to have been already published in multiple, independent, reliable sources; this addition appears to be original research. This newly-coined word should not appear in the article until it is in as common usage as diminution, augmentation, and the other terms in that subsection of the article. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
These MIDIs seem to have incredibly low volumes. Does anyone else have to turn the volume WAY up to hear them? If so, maybe we can get new recordings, preferably on a non-percussive instrument? Any string bank that sustains sound throughout the note value would be better, I think. -- Yano 23:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
According to the article:
I have always found it hard to believe that there are "exceptions" to the rules, occasionally during the 200 years of the common practice period. It seems to me that counterpoint which follows the species rules would be the exception. Hyacinth 01:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree, Hyacinth. My editing adds "pedantic", as a further qualification of the view discussed. But I didn't want to interfere too much. (Do I dare disturb the universe? You bet! It disturbed me first...!) -- Noetica 01:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the rules for counterpoint were developed well after it's hay day. The Rulers are an adaptation put together by music historians, theorists and musicologists as a pedagogical tool to teach people how to write music in the style. Certainly if you've examining the music of Binchois you'll find few exceptions to these rules that have been developed, but Palestrina's works are filled with exceptions. So of course they we're breaking the rules because they didn't exist yet. -Liam
This last statement is completely insupportable with the facts and a misinterpretation of the nature of what "exceptions" in counterpoint are (mistakenly assigned to the realm of melody when they actually belong to the narrower field of counterpoint). The prescriptions and restrictions associated with counterpoint were certainly NOT established well after the "hay day" (sic) of counterpoint. There was no heyday for counterpoint because it is NOT a style of composition. What you are referring to, I assume, is the early attempts at vocal polyphony, and with this term in mind then it is true that the earliest work on the subject (as we understand counterpoint) "Gradus ad Parnassum" by Fux was published well after this era. Before this time, theorist certainly were very active in recording instruction in voice leading, but only as it conciously developed. The pathway to discovering the significance of the third and fifth scale degrees was not an "invention" which theorist projected onto composers but an evolution of the ear. On these terms it actually happened with astounding speed, that is, our ability to grasp the tonality of a work as a whole. <One of the problems with the Fux work (this is terribly interesting as described by Schenker) is the 18th century confusion about the nature of 14th-17th century polyphony. Fux and many others from his 18th Century perspective had already lost contact with the fact that polyphony was an evolutionary process and that voice leading in, say, Palestrina, was not governed yet by true tonality, which is defined by a high level of relationship between the tonic and its "bretheran" the fifth and third. Of course, Palestrina used the third and fifth but the unfolding process and the relationship between the vertical (chord) and horizontal (melody) dimensions were not mature(do NOT go to the Wiki article on Tonality for further info.It is very anecdotal) <About the Fux work and CPE Bach's monumental work "Theory of Accompaniment", a treatise on voice leading (counterpoint) and thoroughbass, Shenker write, " In (these) two treatises just mentioned, the theory of voice leading alone was presented; thus it appears in completely pure form at least in that no notion of scale degree (and thus tonality) is intermixed with it...not even in the matter of doubling of intervals."
[User:Tadcaster|Tadcaster]] ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to understand what counterpoint is but I can't seem to find anything which explains what independent and interdependent, as used at the start of the article mean in a music theory context. I've been able to understand other music theory articles but this one stumps me. If I'm having trouble with it, I think other people might be too. Because of this, I suggest either a rephrasing or extra sentences for explanation. Munci ( talk) 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I get it. Would it be at all be similar to polyrhythms? Is the difference that counterpoint is with multiple separate melodies whereas polyrhythms are with rhythms? Munci ( talk) 19:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea, do you think, to put in the article your first explanation here? Munci ( talk) 19:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead. I would have thought the lead would have been best though because it would fit in easily without changing the surrounding words much. Munci ( talk) 20:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: "Is the difference that counterpoint is with multiple separate melodies whereas polyrhythms are with rhythms?":
Melody as an attribute of music is an abstraction different from a melody or melodies. Melodies have rhythm, and one important way--possibly the most important way--to make simultaneous melodies independent is to give them different rhythms, especially rhythms that weave in and out of each other. Each melody may be satisfactory rhythmically in and of itself, but the composite rhythm may lend the music a rhythmic drive, a beat, each melody doesn't have in and of itself. It isn't necessary that all counterpoint use the technique I'm describing, but a lot of effective counterpoint does use it. Much of Bach's contrapuntal music has been called motoric, meaning that the composite rhythm of its separate strands drives it as an engine drives a train.
Re: "Counterpoint is the art of writing those parts so that they work well together....":
That's the traditional viewpoint, anyway. In another section on this page I remarked that sections about counterpoint in jazz and popular music should (so as to justify their existence) discuss how contrapuntal practice in these genres differs from the practices discussed elsewhere in the article. Well, it so happens that the salient difference--where there is a significant difference--has really to do with what I've always called random counterpoint. A certain amount of random counterpoint is inevitable in all improvised music and to a lesser extent in all music composed collectively, as most popular music is (the "lead sheet", which is really only a sketch, not withstanding). In jazz music in the bop and post-bop eras it occurs regularly between the walking bass part and the soloist's part. TheScotch ( talk) 09:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC) TheScotch ( talk) 09:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Removed from the article:
Writing counterpoint isn't a simple matter, and if I was going to teach you how to do it, I'd have to charge vast sums of money ;) For the "number thingys", maybe you mean figured bass? -- Camembert
No, that's exceedingly unlikely. Figured bass is most likely. TheScotch ( talk) 08:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
"The same cantus firmus is used for each, and each is in the Dorian mode." - No it isn't. This is a tonal example, not modal. The example is in d-minor. How else can you explain the leading tone c# to d? This does not exist in d-dorian. This article is pretty sloppy I must say.
I think the main article could be improved with a description of counterpoint in computer-generated music. Surely it is possible for a computer to generate this kind of music? About 30 years ago, there was a column in Scientific American magazine about computer-generated music. Although it might strike some people as dry, I think a list of some early computer-generated examples of counterpoint would be very useful, especially if there were a description of the algorithms used for creating them. 198.177.27.13 ( talk) 06:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sluzzelin and I had a talk on ‘counterpoint’ while its implication might be wider than it looks. I quote them as follows in order to attract more attention and responses.
Hi, Sluzzelin,
Hmmm… How do you want me to provide references?
I have some image files of ancient Chinese music scores. However, you may need a training to read it, their symbols are even different from modern Chinese.
Sean TX Wu (at GymSean( Talk))
Hello, Sean. I hope my removal and reasoning didn't offend you, I really do think that including a non-Western perspective would make for a valuable expansion of the article's current scope.
First of all, I suggest writing about what is known and can be referenced. For example, your phrasing was vague ("it might have most commonly been", "the practice might have been existing in a lot of areas around the world".) Did it or didn't it exist? How did it exist? Where did it exist? What are the shared characteristics and where do they differ? etc.
Secondly, I'm not a scholar of Chinese music, but I do believe that techniques and aesthetic rules comparable to Western counterpoint can be found outside Western music. These comparisons need to be specific and referenced. "For example, we have found plenty of cases in Chinese music history in which the earlier ones might be traced back to thousands years ago." (Also, who is we?)
Finally, the language may be a problem, but not necessarily. I admit that I neither understand nor am even able to read Chinese (whether modern or not). Do any publications on counterpoint in Chinese musical scores or structures exist in English as well? This might be a starting point. If they exist in Chinese, some people might oppose their inclusion, but not me. If they're referenced they can be verified by other users who happen to understand Chinese, or by myself with help of a translator.
Once again, I hope you find a way to include this potentially valuable information. I have asked Antandrus to weigh in. He's a scholar as well as an administrator with a lot of experience regarding musical articles at Wikipedia. Maybe he can help you. Take care. Sluzzelin talk 10:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, I'd like to add more comments:
1. I appreciate Sluzzelin’s interest to include non-Western perspectives. I believe it is the wiki’s objective to expand a worldwide scope instead of a Western-centered point of view. It will require a long-term pursuit and not be limited to 'Counterpoint'.
For another example, I found the wiki's ‘ The Well-Tempered Clavier’, which is the base of counterpoint, described Bach’s publication (in 1722) and his leading contribution in the twelve-tone equally tempered scale. However, this story did not mention that a earlier Chinese musician and mathematician Zu Zai-Ui had already published a systematical and deliberated book that established the well-tempered scale in 1584; thenceforth he also had redesigned the instruments of the orchestra to play the well-tempered scale.
2. There are heavy literatures that keep, examine and develop the Chinese music theories and its evolution; however, there is relatively rare in English version. I have checked the wiki’s Chinese version; most of them are direct translation from English version. They are bare of original Chinese information included.
I am wondering if you have a ‘call-for’ system to recruit a qualified translator to provide the evidences you need.
3. In the fields of arts, aesthetics, history, behavioral sciences and probability knowledge, we (I, my colleagues, my students, my readers and my friends who agree with me) want to be careful enough to use the word ‘might’. We'd like to constantly remind ourselves that under a certain chance, we ‘might’ still make a bad judgment even though we have strong evidences.
Txwu A.K.A GymSean( Talk) 18:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Are there any madrigals with counterpoint in them? I'm still having a hard time understanding what counterpoint is.
Can counterpoint consist of more than two voices, where a given voice consists of a series of notes characterized by, or marked with, an identical rhythm, but they trade off in their harmonies - if I am using the word right - as when indexed by seconds into the song's duration, and it becomes clear that there are moments when the notes come closer together? 198.177.27.24 ( talk) 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The point of this page is to discuss and achieve consensus about what should go in the "Counterpoint" article, not to answer general questions about counterpoint, and by now I think we've strayed much too far afield. Nevertheless: Yes, a contrapuntal duet for a single violin and a single cello remains just as contrapuntal if the violin part is assigned to a violin section and the cello part is assigned to a cello section. Within the sections, of course, there is no counterpoint--unless someone is flubbing his part; then we have what I call random counterpoint.
"I think of a voice as a computer-generated sound that has, in its attempt to simulate a music instrument, a specific waveform and sound envelope, and does not otherwise vary greatly (beyond a particular range of amplitudes and frequencies) from second to second, or minute to minute, in a song.":
This is a dumbed-down abuse of the term promulgated by commercial electronic keyboard manufacturers in order to maximize sales. In most cases, by the way, these sounds are not actually "computer generated"; rather, they're samples, that is, digital recordings (although they may be electronically tweaked). The (not dumbed-down) analog synthesis equivalent is patch. Beware also of electronic keyboard manufacturers's abuse of the term polyphony. TheScotch ( talk) 21:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It might help to note that punctus contra punctum means "point of the pen against the point of a pen" and denotes the dot of ink left behind after dipping the pen ("penna" - a feather) into an inkpot, and dabbing notes down on a blank sheet of paper. The Latin verb "pungo, pungere, punxi, punctum" is distantly related to the English verb punch (a frequentative form of push and put), and the fourth principle part - punctum - is what gives us the word point (through Norman French). The preposition contra means against, or in opposition to, in its most usual sense. 198.177.27.24 ( talk) 20:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Second sentence (of passage in question) deleted. TheScotch ( talk) 20:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Why do we have this section? Counterpoint is a pretty broad term; most music can be said to use counterpoint in some way or other. What are we trying to say with this? To me it just looks like a magnet for lists of songs and artists people like, with no real informational value. - Rainwarrior 21:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
All false, I'm afraid. Counterpoint is not a "broad concept" nor does it exist in many types of music. To say so is an admission of a lack of fundamental understanding about what the purpose of counterpoint is. Again, counterpoint is not a form of composition and superficial similarities (such as non western music that moves note against note) does not AUTHENTICALLY define that music as counterpoint (!) I will also say, that bending the definition of counterpoint to encompass other types of music or trying to categorize music of other cultures as belonging in the realm of western counterpoint, does not lead us to a better understanding of either counterpoint or the music of other cultures! The act of trying to bring pop music, non-westen music etc etc into the argument is merely a weak attempt at adding some genuine content to an article which lacks deeper undestanding of the meaning and purpose of counterpoint. It is amateurish and rather pointless. Why do we insist on taking these shallow avenues into anecdote-ville rather than actually dig deeper into the actual topic of counterpoint and shall we say, the amazing relationship between the dissonant second and the seventh in tonal music? Because it takes effort I guess.( talk) Tadcaster ( talk)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.134.122 ( talk) 14:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the entirety of the "Jazz" section as it currently reads:
"Excellent examples of counterpoint in jazz include Gerry Mulligan's Young Blood, Nina Simone's "Love Me or Leave Me", Bill Holman's Invention for Guitar and Trumpet and his Theme and Variations, as well as recordings by Stan Getz, Bob Brookmeyer, Johnny Richards, and Jimmy Giuffre."
The four pieces named may be polyphonic and may be "excellent" (POV, by the way), but listing them doesn't tell us anything about counterpoint. The remainder of the sentence is a mere list of jazz musicians, which is even less informative.
Then we have the "In literature" section, which is obviously using the term counterpoint in another sense entirely (whether or not that other sense is analogous). TheScotch ( talk) 08:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: "it [this article] seems to discount the notion that counterpoint can exist in popular music":
I have to think that this discounting is in Mezaco's imagination, but I'd have no objection to placing in the article some version of Rainwarrior's observation that "most music can be said to use counterpoint in some way or other" if a reputable source can be found and that would satisfy Mezaco.
Notice that the "Counterpoint in popular music" section was reinstated without consensus having been achieved that it should be reinstated. Notice that as of this writing Mezaco is the sole dissenting voice (now it's five-to-one in favor of deletion) and that Mezaco's comments never actually addressed the original complaint (that since counterpoint exists in most music, there's no point listing instances genre by genre). TheScotch ( talk) 09:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
... Melodic strands? ... uh, do you think we could use more appropriate language in this respect? Voices, perhaps? — Ryguillian
yeah we could say 'melodies' 'lines' 'parts' 'voices' etc.
The melodies that comprise species counterpoint, of which this site is focused upon should be referred to as "linear melodies", they have no origin in any harmonic respect. furthermore, this article should entail more on how these "linear melodies" are initially derived. My hypothesis is that they are derived from any process that causes a linear prolongation. this terminology is not to be confused with the grossly inaccurate theory of Schenker. Examples of this prolongation that Fux has previously stated include Passing Tones, Changing tones, suspensions, and anticipations. through this method, each "linear melody" can be reduced to a single tone. For further information on this topic I suggest a thorough reading of Tchaikovsky's "Guide to The Practical Study of Harmony".
Your comments about intention brings out a very important point regarding the function of counterpoint, being that there is no intention in a phenomenological sense but that its function never varies from period to period. There are two distinct phenomenon: counterpoint and free composition. The role of counterpoint never changes, its principals remain intact and inviolable (sp?) What I think you are trying to describe when you use the term "varies from piece to piece" is simply free composition. In order to understand the true nature of counterpoint it is necessary to abandon the concept that it is in any way a form of composition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.137.114 ( talk) 13:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see more about the actual rankings of consonance of just intonation intervals. Harry Partch's odd limit, Constantine F. Malmberg's "order of merit", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.65.203 ( talk) 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I am dissatisfied with the section on Dissonant Counterpoint in this article. I have been researching the subject for some time and its section here does not do the style justice. Just as Schoenberg's twelve-tone method represents the compositional technique of a whole school of composition in Europe, so Seeger's Dissonant Counterpoint represents the musical stylings of the 'ultramodern' set in the States at roughly the same time.
The technicalities of composition in the dissonant counterpoint style are significantly different from classical contrapuntal writing, yes it originated from a reversal of the techniques of Fuxian counterpoint, however Seeger developed it much further to include such concepts as dissonating rhythm, form, dynamics and many other aspects of composition. I'm thinking perhaps it deserves its own article as there is a lot to say about it and the composers which wrote in the style, far more than is covered here. I would be happy to start work on a new article, however I am not familiar with the technicalities of such an undertaking. Any willing collaborators? 62.56.124.204 ( talk) 08:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Jackmack
Counterpoint is normally taught in historical context, and I think the article should be organized historically with separate broad sections devoted to the techniques of 1) "modal" or Renaissance counterpoint, 2) "tonal" or "common-practice-period" (Baroque, Classical, and Romantic) counterpoint, and 3) "modern" or twentieth-century counterpoint. The current "Linear counterpoint" and "Dissonant counterpoint" sections should be subsumed by 3). (The "Linear counterpoint" section as it currently reads, by the way, is a mess.) TheScotch ( talk) 09:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Most of the sections "Development" and "Species counterpoint" (including the sub-sections) are copied almost directly from this website: http://student.santarosa.edu/~lrisi/HTML2/assn3.html . I am not quite sure how to deal with this, so any aid would be appreciated. I am glad to do whatever I can to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14jbella ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth ( talk) 23:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Here some are things (some I believe from Schachter's counterpoint text which has a certain goal, others from Fux which has another) for consideration for addition. I don't have time to develop them myself right now unfortunately, but if nobody does in the interim I will write something developed for addition to the article.
Principles of line (tendency tones), climax or anticlimax is desirable though not required by Fux (generally avoid bass and soprano climaxing at same time), balance (don't leap into cadence), variety (don't just write scales or arpeggios), descent at cadence in Cantus, singability (=> avoid leaps of major sixths, no dissonant leaps, avoid leaps in same direction greater than third, keep vocal ranges, etc.)
Avoid cross relations and neighboring chromaticism (implied by Fux) when raising LT at cadence. Also avoid augmented second by going to 6 -> raised 7 ->1 such as in Aeolian mode.
Ottava Battuta - forbidden in two parts, permitted in more (Fux)
Nota Cambiata and other common maneuvers to evade common problems that became characteristic or cadential figures.
Outlining a dissonant interval (by changes of direction, range of an outer part)--less bad than by outlining with leaps but still not desirable.
Beaten octaves or fifths must be broken up by consonants in 2nd species (or else parallels with passing tones results) and must not be repeated more than twice(thrice?)/no sequential motion. Related rule that gives birth to Nota Cambiata in 3rd species(?).
For Schenkerian applications, voice crossing is forbidden. In "real" baroque and renaissance counterpoint it is often necessary and desirable. Rufe ( talk) 06:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The initial summary is awful imho; a music student would have to take a few seconds to digest, whilst a newcomer would have no chance. In my mind, it'd ideally be along the lines of "counterpoint is when you have multiple tunes which are in harmony but have different rhythyms". But I get the impression the author of the current version always wanted to be a textbook writer but never quite made it...
Due to the undefended reversion, however, I've made an intermediate version, and provide my rationale for the intermediate changes: "Voices" implies two or more already, so I think the phrase "two or more" is superfluous, and rhythm is a more common term than "pitch contour" so I reckon it deserves to come first, not that I think the phrase "pitch contour" is acceptable, mind you. 86.163.71.158 ( talk) 09:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
If you say "The social utility of the indeterminate sentence is recognized by all criminologists as a part of our sociological evolution towards a more humane and scientific view of punishment," you can go on talking like that for hours with hardly a movement of the gray matter inside your skull. But if you begin "I wish Jones to go to gaol and Brown to say when Jones shall come out," you will discover, with a thrill of horror, that you are obliged to think.
Are the examples of the species taken from a specific book or manual? I'm asking because I think there are some errors:
In addition, I don't understand why B is almost always natural instead of flat in all the examples; "dorian" doesn't mean that the B must be natural.
[Sorry if I could not explain myself better, I'm italian. :)]
80.116.252.5 (
talk)
15:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC) S.P.
I think there is at least one additional problem with one of these examples: In the third species example, I see a dissonant outline between the D on the first beat of the first measure and the E on the first beat of the third measure, in the upper voice. Unless I'm missing something, this is not allowed.
--Julian (
talk)
04:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Would anyone mind editing out the fingering numbers in the initial image example? Considering the prevalence of labeling intervals with numbers when analyzing counterpoint, unaware students (such as those that grew up playing instruments other than piano) may come to this page and end up confused by that initial image. Just a thought. Phembree ( talk) 00:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence should include that they are independent in melody as well. It's what counterpoint is all about — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.239.250.100 (
talk)
04:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I am forced to say there is no studious language which enables me to properly argue the fact that this article is at best, terribly problematic. There is no proper or even accurate definition of the technique of counterpoint in the article and it's historical "use" is completely false (see Shenker, Schacter etc) The weak attempt at genre-izing counterpoint in non Westen Music mediums is simply not possible. One cannot alter the true features of counterpoint to fit different types of music. In the first place, counterpoint is not a form of composition (again see Shenker or Schacter on the subject) nor is it a derivation of 15th-18th Century music. Counterpoint is an abstraction of free compositional techniques as derived from nature, as practiced by such masters as JS Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. I have to recommend this article be completely redone by someone who is familiar with counterpoint. Something is not true just because we say it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadcaster ( talk • contribs) 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a different respondent from the above, however I do have a suggestion. I didn't seem to find any talk of species counterpoint involving 3 (or more) voices: some of the rules in this domain - including the fact that hidden fifths can be tolerated in either the bottom or the top two voices should the third voice move by contrary motion - are not stated in this article, and I wonder if they should be included. (?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.247.212 ( talk) 20:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
All examples of species counterpoint shown here are wrong. A Cantus Firmus has a MINIMUM of 8 notes, MAX of 16. Source: "Counterpoint In Composition" By Felix Salzer and Carl Schachter (Page 4). Let's just use the rules that survived Mr scotch. Unless you want to uncover the other species... too much work, i'm lazy.
Species counterpoint is a math to getting good voice leading. It's not a compositional tool, but composition practice. Palestrina DID use calculations such as what we see in species counterpoint to write his music, but they didn't always obey the "rules."
And to answer to your question, IP : 152.3.247.212 After you have written your counterpoint over the cantus firmus, you can write piano chords between them. Parallel fifths, octaves, and beaten fifths are much less problematic when they are in the inner voices. It is the lesser of the Evils, so it is allowed but only a little. Never between the top and bottom notes( what should be the cantus and counterpoint), because those are the voices we can hear the most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dax the drums ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The introduction to this article, "Counterpoint most generally involves very different, independent, and harmonious musical lines.[citation needed] 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.[citation needed] " contains two citation-neededs. I don't think this is the problem.
I think the problem is that this is a piece of verbal fog so impenetrable that it would be difficult to argue either way on the question "Is this meaningless nonsense?" Some might say there is no evidence for either side, while others might claim that there is too much.
In any event it seems to me clear that it does not tell us anything about counterpoint.
DavidLJ ( talk) 16:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
OK this article is incomprehensible and weak. I looked at the other language versions and they are not much better, except maybe the Chinese version which has a detailed history of counterpoint. The Portuguese page has modern music samples from Brazil, the Romanian and German versions have additional examples with graphics. Someone needs to rework this article and make it more newbie friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.132.27.57 ( talk) 02:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
(PS, the absurd comments above illustrate how few still comprehend that tonal composition is a mere extension of contrapuntal axioms.)
I think the first sentence should say that they are independent melodically rather than in "contour" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:D9B5:5E7C:4F5B:EE71 ( talk) 05:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This subject is very advanced even for those acquainted with basics of classical music theory. I've reviewed the sections and determined they are adequately simple to be useful. Adagio Cantabile ( talk) 13:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I want to follow the text in this text and the article on harmony. Best as I can claim, I can play simple chords on the guitar (A, D, E type songs for example) but I do not read music. I can pick out great 3-part harmony- Crosby, Stills, and Nash, and the Dixie Chicks with women. I am guessing that counterpoint would be expressed well by the early members of The Temptations, for example. But the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has me confused because I am not familiar with reading notes or medieval music. Mentioning organum, discantus, and fauxbourdon as mentioned by User talk:Jerome Kohl would leave almost all readers in the dust- but so does this article. Can no one explain in intelligent layman's terms how counterpoint and harmony apply to music from the last 100 years with which we have familiarity and enjoy? I really don't think this is a case for the Simple Wikipedia! Given that music is a universal language, are you editors not puzzled that no other language version of this article exists outside this attempt at English?! -- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 21:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Between the 3rd and the 4th bars there's a "dissonant corner" from the Si(B) to the Fa(F) which forms a triton passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.148.245 ( talk) 21:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
A midi file for each of the different illustrations would be a good complement. It also gives a more tangible sense of what counterpoint is. Rintrah 09:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC) if you've examined(not)if you've ixamining
I just can make some suggestions from a generalized impression of what I have learned: I think the outside scope of definition 'counterpoint' wasn't quite clear, and especially the comparison with another definition 'Polyphony'. After my learning and studying, in my opinion, we can apply two-factors analysis to see this case: counterpoint and polyphony were all impacted by two main variables - Vertical factor and Horizontal factor. Counterpoint, the distribution of itself, was 'standing' on the horizontal factor. Firstly, alongside time's on-going, we knew the principles of melodic lines from horizontal views. Then, we knew its outside shape in a sentence, as harmonically 'point against point' and with many types from one, to two, and more... We got its main characteristic and made this definition 'counterpoint'. Later, we just began to see its vertical factor and knew it also belonged to 'polyphony' and had some principles of 'degree intervals' and some avoidances... There was a cognitive chain in processing our thinking. We can say Counterpoint was the situation when we 'were standing on horizontal stance to see vertical conditions'. However, 'polyphony' differed from counterpoint that it describes a view, in which two or more independent melodic lines were distributing in different parts of a texture simultaneously. We were scanning the manuscripts on the vertical stance. Afterwards, we just began to consider its horizontal factor, and found at what time, one theme was highlighted; but at the other time, another theme emerged out... Therefore, we can say 'polyphony was standing on the vertical stance to see its horizontal conditions'. If we set two-factors analysis (ideology) into our article and try to search some reference evidences. It could be better. Jason M. C., Han ( talk) 01:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Counterpoint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I've set Pricksong to redirect here, as I believe it refers to the first written counterpoint ( see this wikisource) and thus early counterpoint in general. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable then me could work a mention of it into this article. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 16:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Contrapunctal Forms which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 00:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Contrapuntal Forms (Hepworth) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Why do some examples use a C (Alto) clef? This is not familiar to a lot of readers. If it's an attempt to be historically authentic, then should the treble clef also be a C (Soprano) clef? We're not all violists! 124.171.201.157 ( talk) 08:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Briana M. (UW)
Evaluating an Article: Counterpoint
Counterpoint is a term coined for the technique of setting, writing, or playing a melody in conjunction with another which was developed during the Renaissance period. This compositional technique was widely used and further expanded on during the Baroque period and is closely related to canons and fugues. Located on Wikipedia is an article with vast content on the history of this European Classic Tradition. However, despite being lengthy and informative there are several issues with the page that need immediate attention in order to be deemed a reliable and fruitful knowledge resource.
To start, there are several grammatical errors within the article that make readers lose trust with the content. If the resource provider is unable to properly form a sentence or speak in a scholarly tone how can one know if the statements are even accurate? Yet, the biggest issue with the article is the excessive generalizations which make sentences seem unreliable. This circumstance is seen in both the opening sentence which attempts to define counterpoint and later expansions of the technique in regard to their species. At a certain point, the articles contributors claim and define counterpoint as a form of composition which is not accurate. To state it is a form of composition, the content needs to be an original piece or work of music. Counterpoint is not the literal composition; it is simply a technique that can be applied within a composition. Some of the important composers of the time who implemented this in their works were Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms. Despite Brahms being a composer that heavily adopted the technique, it is very disappointing to see no mention of him in this article. It is said that in Brahms piece Intermezzo op.118 n.4. F minor, Brahms created an incredibly unique mastery of counterpoint. Yet again, there was no mention of this. Additionally, sentences which attempt to expand on counterpoint are messy. It includes commas in the wrong places and excludes commas from where they belong. This element alone results in a very uneasy and daunting reading experience.
Furthermore, in order to have a Wikipedia article that is accurate and reliable, ideally, the evolution of the page should have headers which expand chronologically through the history of the technique. Under the header “Development”, for instance, it should start with Modal Renaissance counterpoint then move into tonal counterpoint, to reflect how it historically evolved. Yet, instead, there is only one sentence that talks about how it is related to fugues, which does not speak about counterpoints development at all. The organization of information on the page needs to be completely redone given how distracting and counterintuitive the structure stands. It can be very challenging for scholars trying to understand the technique to navigate through all the information that is poorly written and with no natural progression.
Considering the article is written about a technique, it appears the contributors have done a better job at remaining neutral. From my review, I did not note any alarming personal pronouns. There are no claims, frames, or biases towards a particular position considering there is no position to necessarily take in this context. While the article exhibits a good effort at ensuring all the hyperlinks are in working order, I believe with the vast amount of information available to such an important topic, there were several terms and titles that could have been hyperlinked in order for readers to easily gain more context on. Wikipedia offers an excellent feature of providing users with hover hyperlinks to see definitions or more context without the inconvenience of leaving one’s page or reading point. Thus, facilitating this would have been ideal.
An element that I believe is concerning for this article is the minimal sources listed at the bottom of the article given the amount of content provided. Typically, with historically rooted terms related to bigger movements, there is an abundance of educational links and resources to provide support for the content. However, I am not seeing the same abundance when compared to the related article dedicated to fugues. While the sources are predominantly scholarly such as coming from Columbia University, Cornell University, Virginia Tech, and reputable books from teachers such as Alan Belkin, they simply appear scarce. In the first section of the Wikipedia article, the page itself even states the lack of resources makes the topic unverifiable. While Wikipedia discusses the topic by pointing out elements of how counterpoint is structured, ultimately it does not provide enough historical backing or enough sound bites as the textbook does.
Located on the Talk tab of the article are other Wikipedia members that agree with my viewpoints. They mention the disorganization, slight inaccuracy, lack of sources, and suggestion to completely approach the subject matter using a brand-new Wikipedia page. There are threads that extend back to 2008 and even discuss potential plagiarism within the content. One user stated, “a music student would have to take a few seconds to digest, whilst a newcomer would have no chance”. All in all, this is very concerning considering most people rely on Wikipedia as a quick educational source of information. Thus, some questions I would like to leave the Wikipedia community in reference to this article would be: what is the natural historical progression of this technique? Exactly what did users contribute to its evolution? Did Brahms contribute to its development or merely study it? Brianaalexa ( talk) 20:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
If the C. F. 's cadence ends Do Re Do in Aeolian mode, the last two Counterpoint Notes necessarily should be Ti Do. But what about the note choice prior to the Ti? It cannot be the Octave (use if Octaves are restricted to only the first and last notes) and it cannot be the naturally occurring 'le' as it would create a dissonant step of an Augmented 2nd.
So is the raised 6th (La) the acceptable answer?? 2600:1002:B01B:EA99:7A77:2425:61FF:34F1 ( talk) 12:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The excerpt, taken from measure 6 of the fugue, lacks key signature, and the playback reflects this as well; the piece should be in Ab major but instead sounds in a minor. Grendon84 ( talk) 04:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The article states:
Where's the Locrean mode? Did the writer just forget it, or was it not used? If it was indeed not in use, could someone please edit the article to explain why? Henre 21:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Noetica- What is an organizing principle? Wouldn't a technique be more than an organizing principle, as I'd assume an organizing principle is one type of technique? - Hyacinth 23:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this word in the introduction, but not being a musician I don't know what it means. There is no article for it on Wikipedia, the dictionary draws a blank and Google returns what mainly look like misspellings of contour. Is countour a spelling mistake? If not, could a knowledgeable person please write an article on it and turn the word into a wikilink? John Dalton 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
An anon is persistently adding the following:
This word, as of right now, gets exactly three google hits which are not on Wikipedia itself. It appears to be a recent coinage by one person who has written one paper promoting it (one of the hits), and is also the domain name for a website by the same person.
I have removed this paragraph several times since any additions need to be terms already in standard usage, in conformance with our policy that everything needs to have been already published in multiple, independent, reliable sources; this addition appears to be original research. This newly-coined word should not appear in the article until it is in as common usage as diminution, augmentation, and the other terms in that subsection of the article. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
These MIDIs seem to have incredibly low volumes. Does anyone else have to turn the volume WAY up to hear them? If so, maybe we can get new recordings, preferably on a non-percussive instrument? Any string bank that sustains sound throughout the note value would be better, I think. -- Yano 23:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
According to the article:
I have always found it hard to believe that there are "exceptions" to the rules, occasionally during the 200 years of the common practice period. It seems to me that counterpoint which follows the species rules would be the exception. Hyacinth 01:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree, Hyacinth. My editing adds "pedantic", as a further qualification of the view discussed. But I didn't want to interfere too much. (Do I dare disturb the universe? You bet! It disturbed me first...!) -- Noetica 01:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the rules for counterpoint were developed well after it's hay day. The Rulers are an adaptation put together by music historians, theorists and musicologists as a pedagogical tool to teach people how to write music in the style. Certainly if you've examining the music of Binchois you'll find few exceptions to these rules that have been developed, but Palestrina's works are filled with exceptions. So of course they we're breaking the rules because they didn't exist yet. -Liam
This last statement is completely insupportable with the facts and a misinterpretation of the nature of what "exceptions" in counterpoint are (mistakenly assigned to the realm of melody when they actually belong to the narrower field of counterpoint). The prescriptions and restrictions associated with counterpoint were certainly NOT established well after the "hay day" (sic) of counterpoint. There was no heyday for counterpoint because it is NOT a style of composition. What you are referring to, I assume, is the early attempts at vocal polyphony, and with this term in mind then it is true that the earliest work on the subject (as we understand counterpoint) "Gradus ad Parnassum" by Fux was published well after this era. Before this time, theorist certainly were very active in recording instruction in voice leading, but only as it conciously developed. The pathway to discovering the significance of the third and fifth scale degrees was not an "invention" which theorist projected onto composers but an evolution of the ear. On these terms it actually happened with astounding speed, that is, our ability to grasp the tonality of a work as a whole. <One of the problems with the Fux work (this is terribly interesting as described by Schenker) is the 18th century confusion about the nature of 14th-17th century polyphony. Fux and many others from his 18th Century perspective had already lost contact with the fact that polyphony was an evolutionary process and that voice leading in, say, Palestrina, was not governed yet by true tonality, which is defined by a high level of relationship between the tonic and its "bretheran" the fifth and third. Of course, Palestrina used the third and fifth but the unfolding process and the relationship between the vertical (chord) and horizontal (melody) dimensions were not mature(do NOT go to the Wiki article on Tonality for further info.It is very anecdotal) <About the Fux work and CPE Bach's monumental work "Theory of Accompaniment", a treatise on voice leading (counterpoint) and thoroughbass, Shenker write, " In (these) two treatises just mentioned, the theory of voice leading alone was presented; thus it appears in completely pure form at least in that no notion of scale degree (and thus tonality) is intermixed with it...not even in the matter of doubling of intervals."
[User:Tadcaster|Tadcaster]] ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to understand what counterpoint is but I can't seem to find anything which explains what independent and interdependent, as used at the start of the article mean in a music theory context. I've been able to understand other music theory articles but this one stumps me. If I'm having trouble with it, I think other people might be too. Because of this, I suggest either a rephrasing or extra sentences for explanation. Munci ( talk) 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I get it. Would it be at all be similar to polyrhythms? Is the difference that counterpoint is with multiple separate melodies whereas polyrhythms are with rhythms? Munci ( talk) 19:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea, do you think, to put in the article your first explanation here? Munci ( talk) 19:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead. I would have thought the lead would have been best though because it would fit in easily without changing the surrounding words much. Munci ( talk) 20:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: "Is the difference that counterpoint is with multiple separate melodies whereas polyrhythms are with rhythms?":
Melody as an attribute of music is an abstraction different from a melody or melodies. Melodies have rhythm, and one important way--possibly the most important way--to make simultaneous melodies independent is to give them different rhythms, especially rhythms that weave in and out of each other. Each melody may be satisfactory rhythmically in and of itself, but the composite rhythm may lend the music a rhythmic drive, a beat, each melody doesn't have in and of itself. It isn't necessary that all counterpoint use the technique I'm describing, but a lot of effective counterpoint does use it. Much of Bach's contrapuntal music has been called motoric, meaning that the composite rhythm of its separate strands drives it as an engine drives a train.
Re: "Counterpoint is the art of writing those parts so that they work well together....":
That's the traditional viewpoint, anyway. In another section on this page I remarked that sections about counterpoint in jazz and popular music should (so as to justify their existence) discuss how contrapuntal practice in these genres differs from the practices discussed elsewhere in the article. Well, it so happens that the salient difference--where there is a significant difference--has really to do with what I've always called random counterpoint. A certain amount of random counterpoint is inevitable in all improvised music and to a lesser extent in all music composed collectively, as most popular music is (the "lead sheet", which is really only a sketch, not withstanding). In jazz music in the bop and post-bop eras it occurs regularly between the walking bass part and the soloist's part. TheScotch ( talk) 09:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC) TheScotch ( talk) 09:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Removed from the article:
Writing counterpoint isn't a simple matter, and if I was going to teach you how to do it, I'd have to charge vast sums of money ;) For the "number thingys", maybe you mean figured bass? -- Camembert
No, that's exceedingly unlikely. Figured bass is most likely. TheScotch ( talk) 08:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
"The same cantus firmus is used for each, and each is in the Dorian mode." - No it isn't. This is a tonal example, not modal. The example is in d-minor. How else can you explain the leading tone c# to d? This does not exist in d-dorian. This article is pretty sloppy I must say.
I think the main article could be improved with a description of counterpoint in computer-generated music. Surely it is possible for a computer to generate this kind of music? About 30 years ago, there was a column in Scientific American magazine about computer-generated music. Although it might strike some people as dry, I think a list of some early computer-generated examples of counterpoint would be very useful, especially if there were a description of the algorithms used for creating them. 198.177.27.13 ( talk) 06:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sluzzelin and I had a talk on ‘counterpoint’ while its implication might be wider than it looks. I quote them as follows in order to attract more attention and responses.
Hi, Sluzzelin,
Hmmm… How do you want me to provide references?
I have some image files of ancient Chinese music scores. However, you may need a training to read it, their symbols are even different from modern Chinese.
Sean TX Wu (at GymSean( Talk))
Hello, Sean. I hope my removal and reasoning didn't offend you, I really do think that including a non-Western perspective would make for a valuable expansion of the article's current scope.
First of all, I suggest writing about what is known and can be referenced. For example, your phrasing was vague ("it might have most commonly been", "the practice might have been existing in a lot of areas around the world".) Did it or didn't it exist? How did it exist? Where did it exist? What are the shared characteristics and where do they differ? etc.
Secondly, I'm not a scholar of Chinese music, but I do believe that techniques and aesthetic rules comparable to Western counterpoint can be found outside Western music. These comparisons need to be specific and referenced. "For example, we have found plenty of cases in Chinese music history in which the earlier ones might be traced back to thousands years ago." (Also, who is we?)
Finally, the language may be a problem, but not necessarily. I admit that I neither understand nor am even able to read Chinese (whether modern or not). Do any publications on counterpoint in Chinese musical scores or structures exist in English as well? This might be a starting point. If they exist in Chinese, some people might oppose their inclusion, but not me. If they're referenced they can be verified by other users who happen to understand Chinese, or by myself with help of a translator.
Once again, I hope you find a way to include this potentially valuable information. I have asked Antandrus to weigh in. He's a scholar as well as an administrator with a lot of experience regarding musical articles at Wikipedia. Maybe he can help you. Take care. Sluzzelin talk 10:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, I'd like to add more comments:
1. I appreciate Sluzzelin’s interest to include non-Western perspectives. I believe it is the wiki’s objective to expand a worldwide scope instead of a Western-centered point of view. It will require a long-term pursuit and not be limited to 'Counterpoint'.
For another example, I found the wiki's ‘ The Well-Tempered Clavier’, which is the base of counterpoint, described Bach’s publication (in 1722) and his leading contribution in the twelve-tone equally tempered scale. However, this story did not mention that a earlier Chinese musician and mathematician Zu Zai-Ui had already published a systematical and deliberated book that established the well-tempered scale in 1584; thenceforth he also had redesigned the instruments of the orchestra to play the well-tempered scale.
2. There are heavy literatures that keep, examine and develop the Chinese music theories and its evolution; however, there is relatively rare in English version. I have checked the wiki’s Chinese version; most of them are direct translation from English version. They are bare of original Chinese information included.
I am wondering if you have a ‘call-for’ system to recruit a qualified translator to provide the evidences you need.
3. In the fields of arts, aesthetics, history, behavioral sciences and probability knowledge, we (I, my colleagues, my students, my readers and my friends who agree with me) want to be careful enough to use the word ‘might’. We'd like to constantly remind ourselves that under a certain chance, we ‘might’ still make a bad judgment even though we have strong evidences.
Txwu A.K.A GymSean( Talk) 18:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Are there any madrigals with counterpoint in them? I'm still having a hard time understanding what counterpoint is.
Can counterpoint consist of more than two voices, where a given voice consists of a series of notes characterized by, or marked with, an identical rhythm, but they trade off in their harmonies - if I am using the word right - as when indexed by seconds into the song's duration, and it becomes clear that there are moments when the notes come closer together? 198.177.27.24 ( talk) 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The point of this page is to discuss and achieve consensus about what should go in the "Counterpoint" article, not to answer general questions about counterpoint, and by now I think we've strayed much too far afield. Nevertheless: Yes, a contrapuntal duet for a single violin and a single cello remains just as contrapuntal if the violin part is assigned to a violin section and the cello part is assigned to a cello section. Within the sections, of course, there is no counterpoint--unless someone is flubbing his part; then we have what I call random counterpoint.
"I think of a voice as a computer-generated sound that has, in its attempt to simulate a music instrument, a specific waveform and sound envelope, and does not otherwise vary greatly (beyond a particular range of amplitudes and frequencies) from second to second, or minute to minute, in a song.":
This is a dumbed-down abuse of the term promulgated by commercial electronic keyboard manufacturers in order to maximize sales. In most cases, by the way, these sounds are not actually "computer generated"; rather, they're samples, that is, digital recordings (although they may be electronically tweaked). The (not dumbed-down) analog synthesis equivalent is patch. Beware also of electronic keyboard manufacturers's abuse of the term polyphony. TheScotch ( talk) 21:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It might help to note that punctus contra punctum means "point of the pen against the point of a pen" and denotes the dot of ink left behind after dipping the pen ("penna" - a feather) into an inkpot, and dabbing notes down on a blank sheet of paper. The Latin verb "pungo, pungere, punxi, punctum" is distantly related to the English verb punch (a frequentative form of push and put), and the fourth principle part - punctum - is what gives us the word point (through Norman French). The preposition contra means against, or in opposition to, in its most usual sense. 198.177.27.24 ( talk) 20:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Second sentence (of passage in question) deleted. TheScotch ( talk) 20:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Why do we have this section? Counterpoint is a pretty broad term; most music can be said to use counterpoint in some way or other. What are we trying to say with this? To me it just looks like a magnet for lists of songs and artists people like, with no real informational value. - Rainwarrior 21:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
All false, I'm afraid. Counterpoint is not a "broad concept" nor does it exist in many types of music. To say so is an admission of a lack of fundamental understanding about what the purpose of counterpoint is. Again, counterpoint is not a form of composition and superficial similarities (such as non western music that moves note against note) does not AUTHENTICALLY define that music as counterpoint (!) I will also say, that bending the definition of counterpoint to encompass other types of music or trying to categorize music of other cultures as belonging in the realm of western counterpoint, does not lead us to a better understanding of either counterpoint or the music of other cultures! The act of trying to bring pop music, non-westen music etc etc into the argument is merely a weak attempt at adding some genuine content to an article which lacks deeper undestanding of the meaning and purpose of counterpoint. It is amateurish and rather pointless. Why do we insist on taking these shallow avenues into anecdote-ville rather than actually dig deeper into the actual topic of counterpoint and shall we say, the amazing relationship between the dissonant second and the seventh in tonal music? Because it takes effort I guess.( talk) Tadcaster ( talk)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.134.122 ( talk) 14:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the entirety of the "Jazz" section as it currently reads:
"Excellent examples of counterpoint in jazz include Gerry Mulligan's Young Blood, Nina Simone's "Love Me or Leave Me", Bill Holman's Invention for Guitar and Trumpet and his Theme and Variations, as well as recordings by Stan Getz, Bob Brookmeyer, Johnny Richards, and Jimmy Giuffre."
The four pieces named may be polyphonic and may be "excellent" (POV, by the way), but listing them doesn't tell us anything about counterpoint. The remainder of the sentence is a mere list of jazz musicians, which is even less informative.
Then we have the "In literature" section, which is obviously using the term counterpoint in another sense entirely (whether or not that other sense is analogous). TheScotch ( talk) 08:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: "it [this article] seems to discount the notion that counterpoint can exist in popular music":
I have to think that this discounting is in Mezaco's imagination, but I'd have no objection to placing in the article some version of Rainwarrior's observation that "most music can be said to use counterpoint in some way or other" if a reputable source can be found and that would satisfy Mezaco.
Notice that the "Counterpoint in popular music" section was reinstated without consensus having been achieved that it should be reinstated. Notice that as of this writing Mezaco is the sole dissenting voice (now it's five-to-one in favor of deletion) and that Mezaco's comments never actually addressed the original complaint (that since counterpoint exists in most music, there's no point listing instances genre by genre). TheScotch ( talk) 09:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
... Melodic strands? ... uh, do you think we could use more appropriate language in this respect? Voices, perhaps? — Ryguillian
yeah we could say 'melodies' 'lines' 'parts' 'voices' etc.
The melodies that comprise species counterpoint, of which this site is focused upon should be referred to as "linear melodies", they have no origin in any harmonic respect. furthermore, this article should entail more on how these "linear melodies" are initially derived. My hypothesis is that they are derived from any process that causes a linear prolongation. this terminology is not to be confused with the grossly inaccurate theory of Schenker. Examples of this prolongation that Fux has previously stated include Passing Tones, Changing tones, suspensions, and anticipations. through this method, each "linear melody" can be reduced to a single tone. For further information on this topic I suggest a thorough reading of Tchaikovsky's "Guide to The Practical Study of Harmony".
Your comments about intention brings out a very important point regarding the function of counterpoint, being that there is no intention in a phenomenological sense but that its function never varies from period to period. There are two distinct phenomenon: counterpoint and free composition. The role of counterpoint never changes, its principals remain intact and inviolable (sp?) What I think you are trying to describe when you use the term "varies from piece to piece" is simply free composition. In order to understand the true nature of counterpoint it is necessary to abandon the concept that it is in any way a form of composition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.137.114 ( talk) 13:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see more about the actual rankings of consonance of just intonation intervals. Harry Partch's odd limit, Constantine F. Malmberg's "order of merit", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.65.203 ( talk) 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I am dissatisfied with the section on Dissonant Counterpoint in this article. I have been researching the subject for some time and its section here does not do the style justice. Just as Schoenberg's twelve-tone method represents the compositional technique of a whole school of composition in Europe, so Seeger's Dissonant Counterpoint represents the musical stylings of the 'ultramodern' set in the States at roughly the same time.
The technicalities of composition in the dissonant counterpoint style are significantly different from classical contrapuntal writing, yes it originated from a reversal of the techniques of Fuxian counterpoint, however Seeger developed it much further to include such concepts as dissonating rhythm, form, dynamics and many other aspects of composition. I'm thinking perhaps it deserves its own article as there is a lot to say about it and the composers which wrote in the style, far more than is covered here. I would be happy to start work on a new article, however I am not familiar with the technicalities of such an undertaking. Any willing collaborators? 62.56.124.204 ( talk) 08:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Jackmack
Counterpoint is normally taught in historical context, and I think the article should be organized historically with separate broad sections devoted to the techniques of 1) "modal" or Renaissance counterpoint, 2) "tonal" or "common-practice-period" (Baroque, Classical, and Romantic) counterpoint, and 3) "modern" or twentieth-century counterpoint. The current "Linear counterpoint" and "Dissonant counterpoint" sections should be subsumed by 3). (The "Linear counterpoint" section as it currently reads, by the way, is a mess.) TheScotch ( talk) 09:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Most of the sections "Development" and "Species counterpoint" (including the sub-sections) are copied almost directly from this website: http://student.santarosa.edu/~lrisi/HTML2/assn3.html . I am not quite sure how to deal with this, so any aid would be appreciated. I am glad to do whatever I can to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14jbella ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth ( talk) 23:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Here some are things (some I believe from Schachter's counterpoint text which has a certain goal, others from Fux which has another) for consideration for addition. I don't have time to develop them myself right now unfortunately, but if nobody does in the interim I will write something developed for addition to the article.
Principles of line (tendency tones), climax or anticlimax is desirable though not required by Fux (generally avoid bass and soprano climaxing at same time), balance (don't leap into cadence), variety (don't just write scales or arpeggios), descent at cadence in Cantus, singability (=> avoid leaps of major sixths, no dissonant leaps, avoid leaps in same direction greater than third, keep vocal ranges, etc.)
Avoid cross relations and neighboring chromaticism (implied by Fux) when raising LT at cadence. Also avoid augmented second by going to 6 -> raised 7 ->1 such as in Aeolian mode.
Ottava Battuta - forbidden in two parts, permitted in more (Fux)
Nota Cambiata and other common maneuvers to evade common problems that became characteristic or cadential figures.
Outlining a dissonant interval (by changes of direction, range of an outer part)--less bad than by outlining with leaps but still not desirable.
Beaten octaves or fifths must be broken up by consonants in 2nd species (or else parallels with passing tones results) and must not be repeated more than twice(thrice?)/no sequential motion. Related rule that gives birth to Nota Cambiata in 3rd species(?).
For Schenkerian applications, voice crossing is forbidden. In "real" baroque and renaissance counterpoint it is often necessary and desirable. Rufe ( talk) 06:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The initial summary is awful imho; a music student would have to take a few seconds to digest, whilst a newcomer would have no chance. In my mind, it'd ideally be along the lines of "counterpoint is when you have multiple tunes which are in harmony but have different rhythyms". But I get the impression the author of the current version always wanted to be a textbook writer but never quite made it...
Due to the undefended reversion, however, I've made an intermediate version, and provide my rationale for the intermediate changes: "Voices" implies two or more already, so I think the phrase "two or more" is superfluous, and rhythm is a more common term than "pitch contour" so I reckon it deserves to come first, not that I think the phrase "pitch contour" is acceptable, mind you. 86.163.71.158 ( talk) 09:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
If you say "The social utility of the indeterminate sentence is recognized by all criminologists as a part of our sociological evolution towards a more humane and scientific view of punishment," you can go on talking like that for hours with hardly a movement of the gray matter inside your skull. But if you begin "I wish Jones to go to gaol and Brown to say when Jones shall come out," you will discover, with a thrill of horror, that you are obliged to think.
Are the examples of the species taken from a specific book or manual? I'm asking because I think there are some errors:
In addition, I don't understand why B is almost always natural instead of flat in all the examples; "dorian" doesn't mean that the B must be natural.
[Sorry if I could not explain myself better, I'm italian. :)]
80.116.252.5 (
talk)
15:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC) S.P.
I think there is at least one additional problem with one of these examples: In the third species example, I see a dissonant outline between the D on the first beat of the first measure and the E on the first beat of the third measure, in the upper voice. Unless I'm missing something, this is not allowed.
--Julian (
talk)
04:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Would anyone mind editing out the fingering numbers in the initial image example? Considering the prevalence of labeling intervals with numbers when analyzing counterpoint, unaware students (such as those that grew up playing instruments other than piano) may come to this page and end up confused by that initial image. Just a thought. Phembree ( talk) 00:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence should include that they are independent in melody as well. It's what counterpoint is all about — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.239.250.100 (
talk)
04:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I am forced to say there is no studious language which enables me to properly argue the fact that this article is at best, terribly problematic. There is no proper or even accurate definition of the technique of counterpoint in the article and it's historical "use" is completely false (see Shenker, Schacter etc) The weak attempt at genre-izing counterpoint in non Westen Music mediums is simply not possible. One cannot alter the true features of counterpoint to fit different types of music. In the first place, counterpoint is not a form of composition (again see Shenker or Schacter on the subject) nor is it a derivation of 15th-18th Century music. Counterpoint is an abstraction of free compositional techniques as derived from nature, as practiced by such masters as JS Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. I have to recommend this article be completely redone by someone who is familiar with counterpoint. Something is not true just because we say it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadcaster ( talk • contribs) 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a different respondent from the above, however I do have a suggestion. I didn't seem to find any talk of species counterpoint involving 3 (or more) voices: some of the rules in this domain - including the fact that hidden fifths can be tolerated in either the bottom or the top two voices should the third voice move by contrary motion - are not stated in this article, and I wonder if they should be included. (?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.247.212 ( talk) 20:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
All examples of species counterpoint shown here are wrong. A Cantus Firmus has a MINIMUM of 8 notes, MAX of 16. Source: "Counterpoint In Composition" By Felix Salzer and Carl Schachter (Page 4). Let's just use the rules that survived Mr scotch. Unless you want to uncover the other species... too much work, i'm lazy.
Species counterpoint is a math to getting good voice leading. It's not a compositional tool, but composition practice. Palestrina DID use calculations such as what we see in species counterpoint to write his music, but they didn't always obey the "rules."
And to answer to your question, IP : 152.3.247.212 After you have written your counterpoint over the cantus firmus, you can write piano chords between them. Parallel fifths, octaves, and beaten fifths are much less problematic when they are in the inner voices. It is the lesser of the Evils, so it is allowed but only a little. Never between the top and bottom notes( what should be the cantus and counterpoint), because those are the voices we can hear the most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dax the drums ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The introduction to this article, "Counterpoint most generally involves very different, independent, and harmonious musical lines.[citation needed] 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.[citation needed] " contains two citation-neededs. I don't think this is the problem.
I think the problem is that this is a piece of verbal fog so impenetrable that it would be difficult to argue either way on the question "Is this meaningless nonsense?" Some might say there is no evidence for either side, while others might claim that there is too much.
In any event it seems to me clear that it does not tell us anything about counterpoint.
DavidLJ ( talk) 16:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
OK this article is incomprehensible and weak. I looked at the other language versions and they are not much better, except maybe the Chinese version which has a detailed history of counterpoint. The Portuguese page has modern music samples from Brazil, the Romanian and German versions have additional examples with graphics. Someone needs to rework this article and make it more newbie friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.132.27.57 ( talk) 02:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
(PS, the absurd comments above illustrate how few still comprehend that tonal composition is a mere extension of contrapuntal axioms.)
I think the first sentence should say that they are independent melodically rather than in "contour" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:D9B5:5E7C:4F5B:EE71 ( talk) 05:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This subject is very advanced even for those acquainted with basics of classical music theory. I've reviewed the sections and determined they are adequately simple to be useful. Adagio Cantabile ( talk) 13:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I want to follow the text in this text and the article on harmony. Best as I can claim, I can play simple chords on the guitar (A, D, E type songs for example) but I do not read music. I can pick out great 3-part harmony- Crosby, Stills, and Nash, and the Dixie Chicks with women. I am guessing that counterpoint would be expressed well by the early members of The Temptations, for example. But the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has me confused because I am not familiar with reading notes or medieval music. Mentioning organum, discantus, and fauxbourdon as mentioned by User talk:Jerome Kohl would leave almost all readers in the dust- but so does this article. Can no one explain in intelligent layman's terms how counterpoint and harmony apply to music from the last 100 years with which we have familiarity and enjoy? I really don't think this is a case for the Simple Wikipedia! Given that music is a universal language, are you editors not puzzled that no other language version of this article exists outside this attempt at English?! -- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 21:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Between the 3rd and the 4th bars there's a "dissonant corner" from the Si(B) to the Fa(F) which forms a triton passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.148.245 ( talk) 21:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
A midi file for each of the different illustrations would be a good complement. It also gives a more tangible sense of what counterpoint is. Rintrah 09:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC) if you've examined(not)if you've ixamining
I just can make some suggestions from a generalized impression of what I have learned: I think the outside scope of definition 'counterpoint' wasn't quite clear, and especially the comparison with another definition 'Polyphony'. After my learning and studying, in my opinion, we can apply two-factors analysis to see this case: counterpoint and polyphony were all impacted by two main variables - Vertical factor and Horizontal factor. Counterpoint, the distribution of itself, was 'standing' on the horizontal factor. Firstly, alongside time's on-going, we knew the principles of melodic lines from horizontal views. Then, we knew its outside shape in a sentence, as harmonically 'point against point' and with many types from one, to two, and more... We got its main characteristic and made this definition 'counterpoint'. Later, we just began to see its vertical factor and knew it also belonged to 'polyphony' and had some principles of 'degree intervals' and some avoidances... There was a cognitive chain in processing our thinking. We can say Counterpoint was the situation when we 'were standing on horizontal stance to see vertical conditions'. However, 'polyphony' differed from counterpoint that it describes a view, in which two or more independent melodic lines were distributing in different parts of a texture simultaneously. We were scanning the manuscripts on the vertical stance. Afterwards, we just began to consider its horizontal factor, and found at what time, one theme was highlighted; but at the other time, another theme emerged out... Therefore, we can say 'polyphony was standing on the vertical stance to see its horizontal conditions'. If we set two-factors analysis (ideology) into our article and try to search some reference evidences. It could be better. Jason M. C., Han ( talk) 01:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Counterpoint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I've set Pricksong to redirect here, as I believe it refers to the first written counterpoint ( see this wikisource) and thus early counterpoint in general. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable then me could work a mention of it into this article. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 16:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Contrapunctal Forms which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 00:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Contrapuntal Forms (Hepworth) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Why do some examples use a C (Alto) clef? This is not familiar to a lot of readers. If it's an attempt to be historically authentic, then should the treble clef also be a C (Soprano) clef? We're not all violists! 124.171.201.157 ( talk) 08:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Briana M. (UW)
Evaluating an Article: Counterpoint
Counterpoint is a term coined for the technique of setting, writing, or playing a melody in conjunction with another which was developed during the Renaissance period. This compositional technique was widely used and further expanded on during the Baroque period and is closely related to canons and fugues. Located on Wikipedia is an article with vast content on the history of this European Classic Tradition. However, despite being lengthy and informative there are several issues with the page that need immediate attention in order to be deemed a reliable and fruitful knowledge resource.
To start, there are several grammatical errors within the article that make readers lose trust with the content. If the resource provider is unable to properly form a sentence or speak in a scholarly tone how can one know if the statements are even accurate? Yet, the biggest issue with the article is the excessive generalizations which make sentences seem unreliable. This circumstance is seen in both the opening sentence which attempts to define counterpoint and later expansions of the technique in regard to their species. At a certain point, the articles contributors claim and define counterpoint as a form of composition which is not accurate. To state it is a form of composition, the content needs to be an original piece or work of music. Counterpoint is not the literal composition; it is simply a technique that can be applied within a composition. Some of the important composers of the time who implemented this in their works were Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms. Despite Brahms being a composer that heavily adopted the technique, it is very disappointing to see no mention of him in this article. It is said that in Brahms piece Intermezzo op.118 n.4. F minor, Brahms created an incredibly unique mastery of counterpoint. Yet again, there was no mention of this. Additionally, sentences which attempt to expand on counterpoint are messy. It includes commas in the wrong places and excludes commas from where they belong. This element alone results in a very uneasy and daunting reading experience.
Furthermore, in order to have a Wikipedia article that is accurate and reliable, ideally, the evolution of the page should have headers which expand chronologically through the history of the technique. Under the header “Development”, for instance, it should start with Modal Renaissance counterpoint then move into tonal counterpoint, to reflect how it historically evolved. Yet, instead, there is only one sentence that talks about how it is related to fugues, which does not speak about counterpoints development at all. The organization of information on the page needs to be completely redone given how distracting and counterintuitive the structure stands. It can be very challenging for scholars trying to understand the technique to navigate through all the information that is poorly written and with no natural progression.
Considering the article is written about a technique, it appears the contributors have done a better job at remaining neutral. From my review, I did not note any alarming personal pronouns. There are no claims, frames, or biases towards a particular position considering there is no position to necessarily take in this context. While the article exhibits a good effort at ensuring all the hyperlinks are in working order, I believe with the vast amount of information available to such an important topic, there were several terms and titles that could have been hyperlinked in order for readers to easily gain more context on. Wikipedia offers an excellent feature of providing users with hover hyperlinks to see definitions or more context without the inconvenience of leaving one’s page or reading point. Thus, facilitating this would have been ideal.
An element that I believe is concerning for this article is the minimal sources listed at the bottom of the article given the amount of content provided. Typically, with historically rooted terms related to bigger movements, there is an abundance of educational links and resources to provide support for the content. However, I am not seeing the same abundance when compared to the related article dedicated to fugues. While the sources are predominantly scholarly such as coming from Columbia University, Cornell University, Virginia Tech, and reputable books from teachers such as Alan Belkin, they simply appear scarce. In the first section of the Wikipedia article, the page itself even states the lack of resources makes the topic unverifiable. While Wikipedia discusses the topic by pointing out elements of how counterpoint is structured, ultimately it does not provide enough historical backing or enough sound bites as the textbook does.
Located on the Talk tab of the article are other Wikipedia members that agree with my viewpoints. They mention the disorganization, slight inaccuracy, lack of sources, and suggestion to completely approach the subject matter using a brand-new Wikipedia page. There are threads that extend back to 2008 and even discuss potential plagiarism within the content. One user stated, “a music student would have to take a few seconds to digest, whilst a newcomer would have no chance”. All in all, this is very concerning considering most people rely on Wikipedia as a quick educational source of information. Thus, some questions I would like to leave the Wikipedia community in reference to this article would be: what is the natural historical progression of this technique? Exactly what did users contribute to its evolution? Did Brahms contribute to its development or merely study it? Brianaalexa ( talk) 20:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
If the C. F. 's cadence ends Do Re Do in Aeolian mode, the last two Counterpoint Notes necessarily should be Ti Do. But what about the note choice prior to the Ti? It cannot be the Octave (use if Octaves are restricted to only the first and last notes) and it cannot be the naturally occurring 'le' as it would create a dissonant step of an Augmented 2nd.
So is the raised 6th (La) the acceptable answer?? 2600:1002:B01B:EA99:7A77:2425:61FF:34F1 ( talk) 12:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The excerpt, taken from measure 6 of the fugue, lacks key signature, and the playback reflects this as well; the piece should be in Ab major but instead sounds in a minor. Grendon84 ( talk) 04:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)