Difference Between Harmonic Successions And Counterpoint Successions

DanielePiano wrote:

Is there anyone who can give me some clarification regarding...?

...it wouldn't be bad at all

DanielePiano wrote:

What is the difference between "harmonic progressions and contrapuntal progressions".

That is, since harmony consists of the chords that accompany the melodic line and counterpoint is the succession of notes used to accompany the melodic line, shouldn't they be the same thing???....instead, the book I am reading (Counterpoint and Composition - Salzer, Schachter) speaks of them as if they were different (page XXXII), but I haven't understood this difference.

Is there anyone who can give me some clarification regarding this...? Thanks a million

This is the text quoted in the book:

Our book distinguishes contrapuntal concepts from harmonic ones; it presents them as contrasting but not incompatible. By distinguishing harmonic progressions from contrapuntal ones, we will attribute to the latter many characteristics that are usually reserved for the former. Of the two great organizational structures, the contrapuntal one is the oldest and more inclusive (((meaning why is it more inclusive compared to the harmonic structure)))........(it then says that medieval polyphony made heavy use of contrapuntal thinking, then in the 17th century harmonic succession began to establish itself).........however, the increase in harmonic structures does not diminish the importance of counterpoint, even if it modifies its forms (((how?))); on the contrary, in many cases, the mutual influence of the two organizational forces is evident.

I will be brief, so partially imprecise.

Tonal harmony is based on chords. A chord is an AUTONOMOUS entity consisting of the union of three or more sounds at third intervals. The C major chord is autonomous with respect to the notes that compose it. That is, C, E, and G do not have specific roles; it is their union that matters.

Counterpoint is a system based on the overlapping of autonomous melodic lines. It does not form harmony—that is, a succession of chords—but polyphony, which is a "generic" co-presence of notes.

In counterpoint, chords do not exist; therefore, in theory, "contrapuntal progressions" do not exist. The expression is more typical of harmony, because harmony places great importance on chord progressions, such as II-V-I... this progression does not exist in counterpoint. In counterpoint, you speak of polyphonic clusters, in general, and of consonances and dissonances. C-E-G in the 1400s is not a chord; it is a consonant polyphonic cluster, with a certain degree of consonance (imperfect, in this case).

In a certain period of music history, the concept of the polyphonic cluster begins to "become" the chord as we know it. This leads us to see proto-harmonic elements within polyphony. Similarly, many harmonic situations are nothing more than "modern" versions of polyphonic customs.

But all this that I am telling you, you would understand better by downloading some contrapuntal scores...

thallo wrote:

But all this that I am telling you, you would understand better by downloading some contrapuntal scores...

Sorry Thallo, do you mean only those from the Renaissance? Right? Otherwise your reasoning might fall apart regarding post-tonalism... no?

you know, the question of "what is and what is not counterpoint" is more complex than it seems anyway, the principles I was talking about are established with the birth of polyphony, therefore from the '300 onwards...

http://conquest.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/c/c5/IMSLP134792-WIMA.4f61-lasmot28part.pdf

i'm going to hurt myself... it's been a lifetime since I last analyzed a Renaissance piece, so I picked a random one by Orlando di Lasso.

The final is G, so we are in the tetrardus mode, specifically the eighth mode. As you can see, even though the piece is for three voices, all voices are not always present. This is an example of Renaissance polyphony. Regarding the text, you can find the cadences, which are the connection points, the articulations. Cadences are not made relative to a tonic but relative to various notes. One speaks of a cadence when at least two voices perform a "clausula," i.e., a conclusive movement on a note. Now I will list the cadences of this piece.

Bar. 6 C-T to G (cantus and tenor) with clausula cantizans (F#-G) and tenorizans (A-G). The bass "avoids" a clausula basizans. In fact, it could do D-G (a clausula basizans, indeed) but it does D-E.

Bar. 9 B-T to C (cantizans of the tenor, avoided basizans of the bass)

Bar. 10 B-T- to C (cantizans of the bass, avoided tenorizans of the tenor)

Bar. 14 B-C to G (tenorizans of the bass, avoided basizans of the cantus)

Bar. 16 C-T plagal to A (avoided Phrygian cantizans in the cantus and plagal basizans in the tenor)

Bar. 19 C-T to D (cantizans of the tenor, tenorizans of the cantus)

Bar. 24 B-C to G (basizans in the bass, cantizans in the cantus)

Bar. 28 C-T to G (tenorizans in the cantus, avoided basizans in the tenor)

Bar. 30 C-T-B to A (tutto giusto, cantizans in the cantus, tenorizans in the tenor, basizans in the bassus)

Bar. 38 C-T-B to D (cantizans in the cantus, avoided tenorizans in the tenor, basizans in the bassus)

Bar. 44 C-T to C (tenorizans in the tenor, avoided cantizans in the cantus)

Bar. 46 T-B to G (avoided cantizans in the bassus, tenorizans in the tenor)

Bar. 51 T-B to G (tenorizans in the bass, cantizans in the tenor)

Bar. 60 C-B to G (avoided tenorizans in the cantus, cantizans in the bassus)

Final bar to G (perfect, cantizans in the cantus, tenorizans in the tenor, basizans in the bassus).

we have 8 cadences on G, 3 on C, 2 on D, 2 on A. Many considerations could be made, the analysis is certainly not finished here, but I just want to point out how there are only THREE cadences with all three voices, and they are one on D, one on A, and one on G (the final one, which resolves in a unison). This is counterpoint, a completely different world incomparable to tonal harmony.

thallo wrote:

http://conquest.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/c/c5/IMSLP134792-WIMA.4f61-lasmot28part.pdf

i want to hurt myself... it's been a lifetime since I last analyzed a Renaissance piece, so I picked a random one by Orlando di Lasso.

The finalis is G, so we are in the tetrardus mode, I would say the eighth mode. As you can see, even though the piece is for three voices, all voices are not always present. Here, this is the example of Renaissance polyphony. Regarding the text, you can find the cadences, i.e., the connection points, the articulations. Cadences are not made relative to a tonic but relative to various notes. One speaks of a cadence when at least two voices perform a "clausula", i.e., a conclusive movement on a note. Now I will list the cadences of this piece.

Bar. 6 C-T to G (cantus and tenor) with clausula cantizans (F#-G) and tenorizans (A-G). The bass "avoids" a clausula basizans. In fact, it could do D-G (a clausula basizans, indeed) but it does D-E.

Bar. 9 B-T to C (cantizans of the tenor, avoided basizans of the bass)

Bar. 10 B-T- to C (cantizans of the bass, avoided tenorizans of the tenor)

Bar. 14 B-C to G (tenorizans of the bass, avoided basizans of the cantus)

Bar. 16 C-T plagal to A (avoided Phrygian cantizans in the cantus and plagal basizans in the tenor)

Bar. 19 C-T to D (cantizans of the tenor, tenorizans of the cantus)

Bar. 24 B-C to G (basizans in the bass, cantizans in the cantus)

Bar. 28 C-T to G (tenorizans in the cantus, avoided basizans in the tenor)

Bar. 30 C-T-B to A (tutto giusto, cantizans in the cantus, tenorizans in the tenor, basizans in the bassus)

Bar. 38 C-T-B to D (cantizans in the cantus, avoided tenorizans in the tenor, basizans in the bassus)

Bar. 44 C-T to C (tenorizans in the tenor, avoided cantizans in the cantus)

Bar. 46 T-B to G (avoided cantizans in the bassus, tenorizans in the tenor)

Bar. 51 T-B to G (tenorizans in the bass, cantizans in the tenor)

Bar. 60 C-B to G (avoided tenorizans in the cantus, cantizans in the bassus)

Final bar to G (perfect, cantizans in the cantus, tenorizans in the tenor, basizans in the bassus).

we have 8 cadences on G, 3 on C, 2 on D, 2 on A. Many considerations could be made, the analysis is certainly not finished here, but I just want to point out how there are only THREE cadences with all three voices, and they are one on D, one on A, and one on G (the final one, which resolves in a unison). This is counterpoint, a completely different world and incomparable to tonal harmony.

wow!!!!!!!!!"}{

I only know that if, in counterpoint, there are overlaps of the different voices (which produce a chord), it is all purely accidental, because counterpoint is created by melodic lines that are independent and bind to each other, supporting a melodic song and thus creating a polyphonic whole.

a I like this definition from thallo: Counterpoint is a system based on the overlapping of autonomous melodic lines. It does not form an 'harmony', i.e., a succession of chords, but a polyphony, i.e., a "generic" co-presence of notes.

e if in counterpoint chords do not exist, then contrapuntal succession cannot exist; I believe this is correct. Sometimes books can confuse ideas because some authors give very personal interpretations, or sometimes it is a matter of approximate translations of certain terms, or simply, with succession, they meant a contrapuntal progression, who knows. I have been reading many books since I was little and I have always found contradictions and also personal interpretations by the author that often complicated things.

i found the question interesting and so I thought I would give my two cents, thanks to everyone