It seems to me a very topical subject; aside from what has already been said, I would also reflect on the etymology of the word counterpoint, which notoriously means note against note.
The word counterpoint stands on its own even without the specifics: imitative, fugal, canonical, etc.
Therefore, recycling Eagle's definition, we are talking about a horizontal dimension but of at least 2 lines that interact.
In my opinion, modernity lies in "which horizontal lines" and "in what way they interact with each other".
Are there rules for which ones and how? In my opinion, aesthetics can provide different answers.
is, in my opinion, an example of a loop (even if with small internal variations) where the different elements interact in counterpoint starting from
1) bass line (right hand)
2) response (left hand)
3) funky guitar
4) etc.
Ligeti's Invention:
This is an evident homage to the craft...
In itself, it seems to me that what Frank said is significant, namely, that aesthetics (only aesthetics or the manuals that will exist in 300 years) can provide answers.
I would add one thing, however: counterpoint means, as has been said, at least 2 horizontal lines in relation to each other, i.e., the movement of one part "conditions" the movement of the other. I would tend to add the necessity that each of these lines enjoys its own interest and is not limited to being a mere counterpart to the other.
If you take Berio's O King
where the main melody is "out of phase" between the different parts, well, even here there is a relationship between the voices, obviously not rhythmically regular but
almost like a canon, strict. Compared to the previous ones, it is yet another counterpoint...
Dear guys, unfortunately I have had to be absent from the forum for quite some time. Anyway, given such an interesting and topical subject, I take the liberty of quoting the contemporary composer Luca Francesconi:
"Maestro, what is needed to be a composer?"
Luciano Berio: "COUNTERPOINT and Analysis. On these, you are fasting"
The great Berio, in his "interview on Music", clearly said "I know no better way than counterpoint to connect the brain with the ears through systematic exercise".
If a genius like Luciano Berio maintained this.... there must be a grain of truth in it!
Those who attended Donatoni's class in Siena in the '80s and '90s learned to manage compositional techniques linked to the modus operandi of the great Veronese; those who instead had the fortune of attending Donatoni's lessons when he was a Conservatory professor (Sandro Gorli and Alessandro Solbiati, for example), have today testified to the fact that the good Franco's lessons were fundamentally based on two practices: analysis (relationships in the starting material, development, and transformation) and the Bachian fugue (counterpoint, then!) often accompanied by Schoenberg's hyper-scholastic treatise (preliminary exercises).
Now, if two giants of the second half of the 1900s considered counterpoint a fundamental practice even for the young imitator of the day (effects like Sciarrin and similar things, I am thinking of Filidei and company), there was perhaps a reason, guys.... sure, writing like Bach doesn't serve much today, but it is the teaching and the experience that count! So, long live Counterpoint.... and down with the imitators. Happy Holidays!
maybe, but I quite like how Bach used to write even if unfortunately I will never be capable of it haha
D
Dante
Member
Reply 26 by Dante
Posts
275
antares86 wrote:
say what you will, but I quite like writing like Bach, even though unfortunately I'll never be able to do it ahah
Bach is unique and difficult to imitate... some manage it, even with decent results... but writing 1000 different pieces like those of his stature ... and with such a broad vision considering the scope of his works ... it is almost impossible.
Bach is unique and difficult to imitate... someone manages it, even with decent results... but writing 1000 different pieces like those of his stature ... and with such a broad vision thinking about the scope of his works ... is almost impossible.
Writing à la Bach is difficult, but not impossible. Obviously, Bach was greatly facilitated in this, as he did not face the problem of having to write ... à la Bach! On the contrary, he was completely free to do everything he wanted: and indeed, as Dante observes, his work is extraordinarily rich and varied.
F
Feldman
Member
Reply 28 by Feldman
Posts
171
RedScharlach wrote:
Writing à la Bach is difficult, but not impossible. Obviously, Bach was very facilitated in this, as he did not face the problem of having to write ... à la Bach! On the contrary, he was completely free to do everything he wanted: and indeed, as Dante observes, his work is extraordinarily rich and varied.
I quote everything, dear Red! How are you?
It must also be said that, even though we might have the same craftsmanship and the same musicality as a J. S. Bach, we could not imitate him perfectly because we do not live in his era and we do not have his same professional and life experiences, all fundamental elements in the formation of a personal style.
All good thanks, I hope you are too! ... it had been a while since you were seen around here
F
Feldman
Member
Reply 30 by Feldman
Posts
171
Not bad, not bad! Yes, unfortunately I had to give up due to lack of time. I am pleased to see that the "composition discussions" are more alive than ever! This forum is really well organized.
I am responding to Margherita 1: it seems a bit "strange" to me that the approach to electronic music poses more problems than writing with acoustic instruments. If we are talking about composition (at any level), in the field of electronics understood as music accessible to anyone through free VSTs, hardware synths, etc., the problem of completing a work (for me) always lies in the composer's ability and not strictly in the difficulty or lack thereof encountered in using certain products, unless we are talking about synthesizers with complex structures like Max MSP and similar, for which, in addition to knowing every single constituent element of a synthesizer—but in this case, not at an intuitive level as with simpler software—a certain familiarity with acoustics (which wouldn't hurt) is also necessary, but here we are already going too far. What I mean is that if one uses the most well-known or less common software on the market, even across different software platforms (operating systems), the fact remains that, if one does not intend to compose a piece by specifying variations in different parameters of a synthesizer, as specific determinants of a pre-studied process, I don't understand where the difficulty in using them lies; for me, it is much more difficult to compose for acoustic instruments, especially regarding technical and performance possibilities. With software (if one wishes), it is possible to do anything, but one should also specify everything, and here I can understand not so much the difficulty in producing the material, as in preparing a score (many don't even do this, and in my opinion, they are wrong) that adheres to the final result. Regarding loops, unfortunately from a technical point of view, too many software programs provide random functions, and this limits the creative process because many limit themselves to using this function, thus leaving everything to chance, and ultimately delegating to the software choices that should be personal, even if instinctive.
M
Margherita1
Member
Reply 35 by Margherita1
Posts
82
Ok Piccinesco, but copy-pasting or randomness (and let's include aleatoric music) also exists in the traditional sphere... it is up to the artist to use it but not abuse it
Regarding copy and paste within the scope of electronic music, I think (and there are many examples) that there is very little personal input, but it's not necessary to go as far as "certain" electronic music; just take a genre that is copied in Italy, and even poorly: hip hop—a genre where tracks used are very often redundant and lacking in personal inspiration, and even worse when a large percentage of the music is obtained through ready-made parts. Similar things happen in jungle, in drum n' bass (I don't remember exactly how it's spelled right now), etc.. the same sounds are used, the same effects, and the whole thing is recognizable after a few seconds. The problem is that those who do this are then convinced they are composers. Serious aleatory music does not convince me because if someone leaves all or part of a work to chance, they don't know what they are writing; it's already difficult writing in a traditional way, let alone like this. Furthermore, for me, one cannot start (someone surely will) from the premise of shocking the listener, because they cannot understand (and I believe it, if even the composer doesn't know, let alone others) why they are getting lost. It is much more spectacular if one manages to write something unique, but that makes sense, where everything starts from a thought-out intention, even an absurd one, but one that has a reason.
