Four-part counterpoint

I took a rough look. Given the quality of the manuscript, I might have misread some notes. I focused on the first line and I'm noting that:

Measures 5-6 between B and T, you write parallel octaves (as at the end of the first line, also between B and T)

In measure 8 of the alto, I would have used F an octave below

For the rest, it seems too simple to make observations from a musical standpoint; however, the parts seem singable to me.

besides Marzapane's reports, parallel 1-2 octaves between bass and alto... 5-6 hidden fifths between tenor and soprano... I was taught that they are only tolerable if the stepwise motion occurs in the upper part.

I would redo it, keeping the soprano a bit higher, so as to have more space for the voices

I have a terrible doubt... but is the succession 4 - 5 or 5 - 4 (so fourth + fifth or vice versa) allowed? I mean, is it feasible in strict invertible counterpoint or is it a massive error?

contrappunto91 wrote:

I have a terrible doubt... but can the succession 4 - 5 or 5 - 4 (so fourth + fifth or vice versa) be done? I mean, is it feasible in strict invertible counterpoint or is it a massive error?

I didn't quite understand the question, try to propose a practical example.

No, I really didn't understand when one can use harmonic intervals of the 4th or 5th in this type of invertible writing.

The problem with Dubois is that he almost always says what not to do, but never what one must do.

The fourth was not very appreciated, so if you use a fifth between S and CS, you will find that by reversing them you will have fourths between CS and S.

contrappunto91 wrote:

The problem with Dubois is that he almost always says what not to do, but never what one must do.

Obviously you can do everything else, which is to say, little and nothing

Regarding triple counterpoint, I really don't understand Dubois' examples.. they go beyond the octave, which is the first thing you shouldn't do!

contrappunto91 wrote:

 they go beyond the octave, which is the first thing you must not do!

Why must it not be done? If anything, it is more difficult to manage material that has crossings or a wide range. Even here, it depends on how good the composer is, and the repertoire presents us with great examples. The fact is that, academically speaking, for the sake of simplification, certain boundaries are set that make life easier for the student and allow them to write a fairly credible fugue in 18 hours, oops 36 hours... oops, the fugue no longer has a cadence

Why don't you browse through the composition workshop section, maybe you'll find some inspiration

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1141-indice-dei-laboratori/

yes but Frank, counterpoint at the octave must not exceed the octave, whereas in Dubois it happens; I don't think it's a good example for someone who is learning.

Sorry, could you indicate the page for me?

here it is:

But to be more precise, what is the example that doesn't add up? And why?

On page 90, which he refers to, Dubois says that two-part counterpoint must never be more than an octave apart from each other.

yes but in the examples he does something else entirely...

he does not respect the rules that he himself states..... it is all beyond the octave..... it seems like a free flourish.... not a triple reversible

On page 91 it says that counterpoint can briefly exceed the limits of the octave; (verbatim) under these conditions, this presents no inconvenience.

But aside from this, does anyone still use Dubois?

First example from page 97, the octave is exceeded only on the upbeat of measure 5 and the respective downbeat of 6. The same occurs in other short points. ONLY A AND B MUST BE CONSIDERED, there is CD

contrappunto91 wrote:

.. not a triple reversible

Sorry, he himself proposes :

A B CD

B A CD

B CD A

A CD B

CD B A

CD A B

It seems triple to me with CD