Counterpoint today

mha...it must be the heat...but I feel like making a philosophical reflection:

in the universe, apart from that first (and presumed) moment that coincided with the big bang,

(I presume) the manifestation of only ONE event at a time has never occurred.

inherent in nature, whether organic and/or inorganic, is the concomitance of events,

independent of each other but often connected by links, evident or less evident,

physical, logical, geometric, etc.

then also in music which, although being an intimate, free and personal expression of man,

is in a broad sense an expression of nature, the concomitance of events (counterpoint laws) has and always
will have or should always have a reason to exist, in my opinion.
the core concept is this.

what evolves is style: the customs of constructing melodic lines, intervals, the scalar sources to draw from and refer to, sonic events, the musical instruments used, the artisanal or conceptual procedures, etc.

I hear some contrapuntal things even in some commercials...if it's happening there too...it means it is current

http://www.pianoconc...chi-e-la-musica

Had you already had the chance to appreciate Microcounterpoint

Tudo to say that Scala Quaranta is right... it is up to the composer to use a technique with modernity, the technique itself is not modern... it is only a means.

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

what evolves is the style

It deserves some reflection.

To answer the topic author, lately it seems to me that everyone has thrown themselves into the sound... forgetting other elements of music.

Ludovica wrote:

It deserves some reflection.

To respond to the topic author, lately it seems to me that everyone has thrown themselves into sound... forgetting other elements of music.

... also as a consequence of the means: today is the era of electronics and digital.

Less musical creativity, more engineering fantasy?

Ah, progress, it has always been viewed negatively...

pestatasti wrote:

... also as a consequence of the means: today is the era of electronics and digital.

Less musical creativity, more engineering fantasy?

Unfortunately I must disagree, engineering "fantasy" is eventually used for the material creation phases... but everything else requires a lot of musical creativity... starting from temperament, which is not so guaranteed to be that of the piano.

Practically, even more musical creativity is required than with traditional means....I am experiencing it firsthand...

However Pestatasti, I don't know what your knowledge level is, could you perhaps provide me with some points for reflection to better understand your statements?...maybe I have my own limitations, but I must admit that the electronic field is very demanding in terms of creativity...

Margherita1 wrote:

Unfortunately, I must disagree; engineering "imagination" is eventually useful for the material creation phases... but everything else requires a lot of musical creativity... starting from temperament, which is not necessarily the same as that of the piano.

Practically speaking, even more musical creativity is required than with traditional means....I am finding this out firsthand...

However, Pestatasti, I don't know what your level of knowledge is; perhaps you could provide me with some points for reflection to better understand your assertions?...maybe I have my own limitations, but I must admit that the electronic field is very demanding in terms of creativity...

No, no, no assertion... on the contrary, it was a question (in fact, I included a question mark), even a provocative one.

I confess my frustration and envy for having now badly divorced from electronics after repeatedly banging my head against latencies and various other problems that are unsolvable for me, yet trivial for anyone with even a minimal grasp of electronic engineering.

Joking aside, I really like (quality) electronic music.

In any case, I am truly convinced that the means influence the way of writing and, therefore, musical aesthetics.

The counterpoint arises from a pre-tonal writing conceived for the oldest musical instrument: the voice.

Perhaps I am talking nonsense, but I have often thought that, today, modern sequencers induce one to write "in superimposed layers." The piece becomes a series of "loops" that repeat and combine with one another. This is indeed a characteristic found, certainly not in so-called "contemporary" art music, but in many perhaps lighter tracks and (forgive me if I add another piece of nonsense) in so-called minimalism.

pestatasti wrote:

Maybe I'm saying something silly, but I have often thought that, today, modern sequencers induce one to write "in overlapping layers". The piece becomes a series of "loops" that repeat and combine with one another. This is indeed a characteristic found, certainly not in so-called "contemporary" art music, but in many perhaps lighter pieces and (forgive me if I add another nonsense) in so-called minimalism.

The idea of overlapping layers is not silly at all... but I find it in much "contemporary" music, and not only in minimalism: for example in On and off and to and fro by Simon Steen-Andersen.

https://soundcloud.c...-and-to-and-fro

But this idea is already found completely developed in The Rite of Spring, or in Debussy.

The question is: does layered writing exclude counterpoint?

In my opinion, no

For me, overlapping loops can be seen as canons....

Gerardo wrote:

For me, overlapping loops can be seen as canons....

Not a bad answer!

But what if the loops follow different cycles, and therefore fall out of phase? At that point, the "note against note" relationship is no longer binding, but only the concept of the range applies. For example, if we loop the sequences ABCD and ABCDE, we have

ABCDABCDABCDABCDABCD

ABCDEABCDEABCDEABCDE

whereby the ratio between the two voices changes from cycle to cycle. I doubt that in this case one can strictly speak of counterpoint.

I'll try to give my nonsense opinion. Is it that among all these canons

http://www.pianoconc...ne-cancrizzante

... there isn't one that is out of sync? I don't know, I read about

Canon for aggravation or augmentation

Canon for diminution

Rhythmic canon

Of which I know little to nothing

You are right: the augmentation canon is something like

ABCDEFG

AABBCCDDEEFFGG

while the diminution canon is

AABBCCDD

ABCD

such that the counterpoint changes from moment to moment.

But in this case, the individual voices proceed gradually diverging, and therefore it seems to me that the idea of a loop, which instead implies a cyclic repetition, is no longer valid.

in my opinion, the discussion is NOT about the concept of counterpoint (which yes, we all agree arises from the principle of 'punctum contra punctum') but about the evolution of the contents and compositional styles that such a concept has encompassed throughout history.

i do not intend to open a debate on the grandest musical systems, but I would like to make some other considerations on the subject.

(forgive me.... it is always because of the heat and the craving for the sea that I will see again in a few days!!!).

anyway....

perhaps I am wrong, but when I think of 'counterpoint', I spontaneously find myself mentally setting up on the supreme principle of the 'concomitance of events'. And by 'events' I mean a series of musical entities detached from any 'hierarchical' link. Let me explain: an 'accompanied melody' implies a 'superior entity' (the melody) and an 'inferior entity' (the accompaniment). Consequently, I spontaneously 'feel' and 'think' of this type of music as 'artificial' or rather 'unnatural' (by virtue of the fact that, in nature, there are no, in my opinion, superior or inferior events, but simply events). The principle of counterpoint in a broad sense (and not just Flemish counterpoint, like Bach, or Palestrina, etc., to be clear) feels closer to 'natural expression', closer to the 'essence of the universe' (whoa.... have I smoked something???!!!). So, whether they are themes, melodic lines, textures, loops, micro-interweavings, etc., I believe it always comes back to the key concept: the 'concomitance of events'. Inside this 'box' we can put anything, at least 2 things that manifest simultaneously, free, independent and non-predominant.

Counterpoint is the horizontal linearity of music...wherever it can be traced, there should be counterpoint

Eagle wrote:

Counterpoint is the horizontal linearity of music... wherever traceable, there should be counterpoint

To tell the truth, I don't quite understand your definition: Gregorian monody is based on the "horizontal linearity of music"... so is it also counterpoint?

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

So, whether they be themes, melodic lines, bands, loops, micro-interweavings, etc., I believe it always comes down to the key concept: the 'concomitance of events'. Inside this 'box' we can put anything, at least 2 things that manifest simultaneously, free, independent and non-predominant.

I would say no: counterpoint is not a generic concomitance of events, but a concomitance of events regulated by precise stylistic practices. Agreed, practices vary from era to era, but counterpoint was born precisely to regulate and control the concomitance of events. Even the concepts of freedom, independence, and non-predominance seem rather vague to me.

Many interesting contributions, but I am left with a doubt. From your words, I haven't understood if there has been a "transformation" of counterpoint over time leading to things like loops, etc.

Or if they are actually separate things.