One-Voice Counterpoint

:-) De La Motte discusses harmonic writing for a single voice in "Il Contrappunto" and takes some of Bach's works as examples. I don't know exactly what he cites, but pieces such as the cello suites or the flute partita are mentioned—monodies that, in their progression, however, touch upon those harmonic functions identified by De La Motte. I prefer to consider it counterpoint, also because the idea that a melody can, in certain situations, have "harmonic" implications is inherent in counterpoint.

De La Motte's "Il Contrappunto" is a very peculiar book... theoretical explanations are not abundant; in reality, it is a sort of exercise book, quite different from normal counterpoint manuals, and largely open to criticism. But in this case, the observation of this typically Baroque "technique" of writing (certainly not just Bachian) is very useful.

By making this consideration, De La Motte intends to convey that writing a solo part absolutely does not exclude the contemplation of a possible harmonic succession, even if implicit.

I have never read this treatise, but what he intended to say is not wrong (even though I understand that talking about counterpoint is one thing and harmony is another); when writing a solo part, if one takes into consideration the possibility of being able to harmonize it (if we are talking about harmonization in that style), that part can have further uses beyond a hypothetical and self-contained use. He wanted to make those reading the treatise understand that monodic writing actually "hides" an awareness, even if implicit, of other voices that can be harmonized with it.

When I was studying at Dams in Bologna, they spoke of implicit polyphony; I imagine you are referring to this, right?

suonolatromba, I don't know what the definition "implicit polyphony" could refer to... De La Motte speaks specifically of harmonic writing in one voice. In the other topic, I changed it to "counterpoint in one voice" because there are terminological problems in De La Motte's treatise. He analyzes counterpoint (and tries to teach it) by completely ignoring classical pedagogy. By "ignoring," I mean that he deliberately decides to ignore it and adopts the terminology of functional harmony, opening up interesting insights at times, but overall misunderstanding many other things.

Here is the Allemande from J.S. Bach's Partita in A minor BWV 1013. This is an example of harmonic writing in one voice, or counterpoint in one voice, or monody with strong harmonic implications

http://javanese.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/1/19/IMSLP221081-WIMA.452f-BWV1013_allemande.pdf

To reach De La Motte's conclusions, one must, ultimately, apply a sort of "so-called" Schenkerian method ;-) by identifying degrees and notes that are more important than others and, consequently, harmonic functions, if not true broken or arpeggiated chords.

The analysis of the piece is not easy, in the sense that, despite the simplicity of the means, Bach has a writing full of salient points, varying in an incredible way. So, I am not analyzing anything :-)

suonolatromba wrote:

they were talking about implicit polyphony

It is used, as well as "false polyphony." A single line theoretically cannot be polyphonic, but it can outline multiple melodic lines. As Thallo says, this refers especially to the Baroque period, but also to all that music that uses this technical device.

thallo wrote:

De La Motte analyzes counterpoint (and tries to teach it) by completely ignoring classical pedagogy. By "ignoring," I mean that he deliberately decides to ignore it and adopts the terminology of functional harmony, opening up interesting insights at times, but overall misunderstanding many other things.

De la Motte's counterpoint is indeed quite peculiar. No classical exercises based on species. It is organized into long (partially autonomous) chapters arranged in chronological order. Fundamental, as far as I am concerned, is the long chapter on Josquin: a detailed analysis of his contrapuntal language, from general pillars to the details. Weak point: the theory of modality is entirely absent. As far as Renaissance counterpoint is concerned, the historical-analytical approach makes me prefer it by far over Dionisi-Zanolini, which is much more widespread in our Conservatories' classrooms.

I imagine that Thallo's observations are instead directed toward the analysis of Bachian counterpoint.

I also consider the analysis of Josquin to be partial and, in general, I consider everything to be lacking. We are talking about a "manual" that, looking at the index, dedicates a 24-page chapter to Dufay - Ockeghem - Binchois - Isaac, titling it "between 'artistic' and 'popularizing'". Ok, I don't know what the original title was and I cannot evaluate the degree of "misunderstanding" in the Italian translation, but if De La Motte wanted to combine historical and didactic aspects, he could have avoided reductions of this type... and he could have dedicated himself entirely to the ancient repertoire, perhaps :-) I do not know De La Motte's training, and when I read him my own was quite lacking, certainly more so than now. Some of his observations are, however, naive, and there is this continuous sensation of anachronism, of incorrect terms, of misunderstanding the original... regarding Josquin, he speaks of "material," without even slightly mentioning modality. And I am not necessarily speaking of that taught by Sabaino (I might be wrong, but you seem Cremonese to me too, RedScharlach ;-) ), but in general of a system of musical principles and "values."

Dating him the benefit of the doubt, I believe these are "inevitable" problems if one wants to combine teaching and history. But no one can seriously think that it is possible to learn counterpoint with De La Motte... not only: what kind of counterpoint are we talking about? A "stylistic" counterpoint? In reality, everything seems progressive, i.e., you learn the first things with Dufay, the second with Josquin, then there is Palestrina and then Bach etc... in this "free" version of counterpoint, one sees the (bad) historical vector of someone who considers ancient modality as "lacking." And to make De La Motte's logical thread "coherent," we are forced to endure a jump of more than 150 years. That is, from Palestrina (1570), a chapter of about 50 pages, we move to J.S. Bach (1740), a chapter of 60 pages, with a small 20-page chapter in between that "should" speak of Schutz but which actually speaks of "stylus luxurians"... Shall we say that De La Motte "avoided" the difficult things of Renaissance modality?? :-) no book is perfect, obviously, but in a book titled "Counterpoint," I would have been happy to give up the chapter on Schumann and company for a chapter on Orlando di Lasso...

thallo wrote:

But no one can seriously think that it is possible to learn counterpoint with De La Motte...

I essentially disagree! To "seriously learn" counterpoint (and I am referring exclusively to Renaissance counterpoint), I think that BEYOND de la Motte and Dionisi-Zanolini, one should read Meier, Jeppesen, Powers, the monographs on composers (the various companions), the literature from specialist journals, one should become familiar with the treatises of the period, from Aaron to Zarlino (that is, from A to Z!), one would need to carefully analyze the great composers (and there are many, and the more you know them, the more you appreciate their differences), one should seriously study Gregorian chant (and as a prerequisite Latin, and liturgy), one would need to practice composition "in style," one would need to sing this music... And certainly many other things that do not come to mind at the moment.

Starting from these premises, it seems obvious to me that no one can claim to deepen the language of Dufay, Ockeghem, Binchois, and Isaac in twenty-four pages: in those few little pages, useful points for reflection are given (on rhythm, if I remember correctly!).

Given that knowledge of modality is essential for understanding Renaissance polyphony, I prefer an approach that completely glides over the issue rather than a makeshift exposition. From this point of view, I find the reduction of rhythmic values adopted (but not always!) by Dionisi-Zanolini to be more misleading, although justifiable in relation to the philological awareness of the period.

Diether de la Motte was first and foremost a composer/teacher, and not a musicologist. Perhaps I appreciate him precisely because of my compositional rather than musicological orientation. From a compositional point of view, I find a lesson in style composition based on a meticulous analytical approach to be extremely educational. I really do not see a reading of music history where the new replaces the old because it is better; on the contrary: in de la Motte's Counterpoint, as in his Harmony Manual, we do not have the construction of an "ahistorical scholastic style" that indifferently throws Josquin, Lasso, da Victoria, and Palestrina (or Bach and César Franck!) into the same pot.

What exactly in the 57 pages on Josquin does not convince you? http://it.scribd.com...ap-su-J-Desprez

It is certainly an approach that leaves a lot of work to be done by the student, and also by the teacher, but at the same time it indicates a good study path.

PS for the record, I do not come from the Cremona area... I have a Bolognese training

I'll give you a better answer later, today is dedicated to digesting the Brescian spit-roast eaten at midnight... ... ... but I very much agree with what 'cantare' highlighted in bold. I am anything but an enthusiast of early music, but I am developing a "physical" connection with this music precisely thanks to singing (and thanks to the magnificent Costanzo Porta choir...).

OK ... I am also sharing ... digestion today!

Some examples of that feeling of anachronism and wrong terminology...

First paragraph of the chapter on Josquin, title "The sound material"... "In the sixteenth century, the sound material is that which is derived from the succession of fifths Bb-F-C-G-D-A-E-B nat. Arranged in scalar order - although it is not a true scale per se - these sounds give rise to the following succession: C-D-E-F-G-A-Bb-B nat. C. The Bb and the B nat. should not be understood as adjacent sounds (...) but as opposing entities that mutually exclude each other".

In theory, the substance of what de la Motte says is correct, but the way he says it complicates rather than clarifies. What does it mean that it is not a scale? A little further on, de la Motte will speak of accidentals "belonging to the scale" and accidentals "foreign to the scale", creating two absurd and never explained concepts: that of "first material" and "second material"... he bases other explanations on these two concepts, such as his concept of a possible modulation between the two materials, a modulation that even in the examples given by de la Motte (on p. 71) does not seem like a modulation at all. When I knew nothing about modes and was reading de la Motte, I imagined an absurd and unreachable theoretical structure; I imagined modes and counterpoint as complex worlds. Then I picked up Meier, cursed a bit because it was long and in English, and discovered that the theoretical part was only at the beginning and that it was simply full of examples. And I wondered WHY de la Motte hadn't taken the trouble to explain modes, cadences, or at least half a concept of finalis or ambitus. Not being an enthusiast nor a connoisseur of that repertoire (nor of the immense related theoretical literature), I cannot truly mark the errors with a pen, but when on p. 72 de la Motte speaks of "a sort of polytonality", taking as examples pieces from the Missa Pange lingua" in which one remains simultaneously in what he calls Phrygian ambitus on E and Phrygian on A, well, there I feel compelled to say that de la Motte does not know modality and that his system of scales with different materials causes more problems than anything else. Entia non sunt multiplicanda!

I agree that Counterpoint has charm. It seems to me (I might be wrong, but it's just a feeling) that it is 1) a book written by someone who knows harmony and has studied counterpoint based on that, and 2) written FOR people who know harmony and want to study it while maintaining that specific theoretical structure, without delving too deeply into the subject. In this sense, de la Motte's analyses are clever because they catch many points, without lighting the way for those who want to actually understand those points, and not just grasp them.

I repeat once more, however, that mine are criticisms from below. I mean, if only I were capable of writing such a book! But in recent years I have come across people who wallow in that repertoire, and they all told me they are fed up with people raised on de la Motte. One day (perhaps) I too will feel the urge to go and get some original treatises; certainly, I would have more desire to buy a book written in current Italian, complete, that serves as a true historical-critical treatise on modality and counterpoint...

thallo wrote:

... I would have more desire to buy a book written in current Italian, complete, that serves as a true historical-critical treatise on modes and counterpoint...

Many of us would want it, but I don't think there is anything coming!

I understand your criticisms, and I partly share them, but I stand by the positions of my previous post. Namely: to understand something about counterpoint, de la Motte certainly is not enough, but if handled critically, it is a useful tool! What truly convinces me, I reiterate, is the approach: if we are to practice writing in style, we will not aim for a generic "Renaissance counterpoint," but we will challenge ourselves with the style of Josquin (or the style of Palestrina, or Lasso...). Similarly, we will study the fugue in the style of Bach, not in the style of Dubois. This method invites, in my opinion, historical deepening.

However, I ask myself a question not directly related to our discussion (and even less to the topic!): is the exercise of "writing in style" useful to the composition student (if nothing else, it occupies a consistent part of traditional teaching)? Is such an exercise also useful to the musicologist?

A million dollar question!

I don't know... I have never really written anything. That is, I harmonized the basses for Harmony A, I harmonized the chorale for Harmony B, and I did 2-voice counterpoints for Counterpoint... once my university obligations were over, my desire to write ended; if I had wanted to study the Baroque repertoire better, I probably would have had to force myself to do much more: diminutions, basso continuo, and the like. Well, if we see the study of composition "in style" as a true study of performance practice, then I think it is essential for those specializing in that specific repertoire. But between the study I imagine and what I "believe" composers do, there is quite a gap... different purposes and different methods

thallo wrote:

I also consider the analysis of Josquin to be partial and, in general, I consider everything to be lacking. We are talking about a "manual" that, looking at the index, dedicates a 24-page chapter to Dufay - Ockeghem - Binchois - Isaac, titling it "between 'artistic' and 'popularizing'". Ok, I don't know what the original title was and I cannot evaluate the degree of "misunderstanding" in the Italian translation, but if De La Motte wanted to combine historical and didactic aspects, he could have avoided reductions of this type... and he could have dedicated himself entirely to the ancient repertoire, perhaps :-) I do not know De La Motte's training, and when I read it my own was quite lacking, certainly more than it is now. Some of his observations are, however, naive, and there is this continuous feeling of anachronism, of incorrect terms, of misunderstanding the original... regarding Josquin he speaks of "material," without even slightly mentioning modality. And I am not necessarily speaking of that taught by Sabino (I might be wrong, but you seem Cremonese to me too, RedScharlach ;-) ), but in general of a system of musical principles and "values."

I know this manual very well; I still use it and find it very useful and innovative. I cannot define it "lacking" or "partial" in its content, given that De la Motte limits himself to providing the composer with prompts to be used as starting points for in-depth and individual study, based fundamentally on the direct analysis of works (if this book is lacking, I would consider any other book full of examples and analysis useless, since every good composer must know how to perform analyses on their own based on initial examples, and in that case, this "counterpoint" is ideal). He speaks of material and not of modality? Well, what interests the composer is not a theoretical conceptualization of modality, but its practical treatment as "organized material."

He does, however, speak of the evolution of this material in the preface to pseudo-monodic counterpoint in the Bachian style.

thallo wrote:

Giving the benefit of the doubt, I believe these are "inevitable" problems if one wants to combine teaching and history. But no one can seriously think that it is possible to learn counterpoint with De La Motte... not only: what kind of counterpoint are we talking about? A "style" counterpoint? In reality, it all seems progressive; that is, you learn the first things with Dufay, the second with Josquin, then there is Palestrina and then Bach etc... in this "free" version of counterpoint, one sees the (bad) historical vector of those who consider ancient modality to be "lacking." And to make De La Motte's logical thread "coherent," we are forced to endure a jump of more than 150 years. That is, from Palestrina (1570), a chapter of about 50 pages, we move to J.S. Bach (1740), a chapter of 60 pages, with a 20-page sub-chapter in between that "should" speak of Schutz but actually speaks of "stylus luxurians"...

It is not a book to be followed to the letter; it has its small errors and should certainly not be considered the Holy Bible of musical composition! They are just prompts, very useful ones, to be reviewed through one's own lens with intelligence. I correct myself: not from Dufay but from Perotin.

Opening a small parenthesis: I think that the chapter on monody (or Bachian pseudo-monody, as I like to call it given the presence of a virtual polyphony in the apparently monodic linear structure of certain compositions) deals not only with learning "writing for a single voice," but with Bachian melodic technique, on how to achieve a perfect imitation of the MELODIC style of Johann Sebastian Bach.

thallo wrote:

Should we say that De La Motte "avoided" the difficult things about Renaissance modality?? :-) no book is perfect, obviously, but in a book titled "Counterpoint," I would have been happy to give up the chapter on Schumann and company for a chapter on Orlando di Lasso...

It is true that one could have spoken of Orlando di Lasso, but we are satisfied nonetheless by speaking of Josquin Des Prez, who also belongs to the Flemish School, an innovative and important composer.

Feldman wrote:

De la Motte limits himself to providing the composer with prompts to be used as starting points for in-depth and individual study, based fundamentally on the direct analysis of the works.

i don't want to provoke, but be honest. If I gave you a polytextual motet, would you be able to analyze it only thanks to de la Motte??

Does he speak of material and not of modality? Well, what interests the composer is not a theoretical conceptualization of modality, but its practical treatment as "organized material."

la modality is the criterion by which that material is organized. We are not talking about conceptualization; we are talking about practice. That being said, conceptualization is studied in solfeggio, in tonal music theory, in harmony, in form theory, and in practically every other musical subject. And de la Motte does not renounce conceptualization; on the contrary. The problem is that he creates his own, ignoring the specific one of the composers he discusses. When I say that there is a specific theorization relating to the composers addressed by de la Motte, I also mean that there does NOT exist a theorization common to all counterpoint. For this reason as well, one should resign oneself to the idea that counterpoint and modality are historicized; they are theoretical and practical models that change over the centuries and would presuppose a strongly historical approach to the subject. This is not the 'radio-electronic school'; a composer should not learn to fix faucets by following simple, ever-identical rules. And the foundations of modern harmony are not enough to analyze the different types of ancient and Baroque counterpoint.

They are just prompts, very useful ones, to be reviewed through one's own lens with intelligence.

the problem is that intelligence is not enough. One would need notions. We are all substantially happy with de la Motte precisely because the notions of ancient modality and counterpoint are difficult to acquire and rare, typical only of specialists. But from a book titled "Counterpoint," I expect something serious and in-depth, not just prompts!

It is true that one could speak of Orlando di Lasso, but we are nonetheless satisfied with him speaking of Josquin Des Prez, also belonging to the Flemish School, an innovative and important composer.

... Desprez dies in 1521 and Lasso is born 10 years later... a Flemish school has NEVER existed; it is a tremendous and misunderstood reduction made by some music history books, and as much as this is not an attack directed at you, this last sentence should make you understand how there EXISTS a problem with ancient music in Italian teaching. And worldwide, probably. You compared two composers who lived nearly a hundred years apart and linked them to a school that never existed. You are also, like me, the product of deficient teaching of music history and, in this specific case, of the history of musical composition. And considering that you too bought and read a book called "Counterpoint," you should be more pissed off than I am, because that (unhelpful) book did not prevent you from making glaring errors in this field.

The Flemish school never existed. Interesting. Where can one read about this?

I mean, referring to people like Gilles Binchois and Guillaume Du Fay and not to non-Flemish people by "location", why wouldn't the Flemish school exist?

I respond to Thallo, who was very kind to comment on my "confutatio"

So, for me De la Motte's Counterpoint is not the only treatise to follow; that is why if it offers insights I agree, and for a polytextual motet there are certainly other useful bibliographic references; a collection of didactic essays on counterpoint like the one we are discussing cannot cover everything but only certain aspects of History.

Finally, in my opinion, you should argue the "Flemish School" issue a bit better because your statement literally surprised me: I am very interested in what is certainly a flaw in our national teaching (one of many flaws, unfortunately!).

edit: personally, I consider the Flemish School to be a simple container for cataloging and identifying various composers, from Dufay to Sweelinck.

The Flemish School is ultimately divided into three periods, not 10,000 as some claim:

1) the period of Guillaume Dufay and Gilles Binchois

2) the search for complexity: Johannes Ockeghem

3) the return to expressivity: Josquin Desprez

the rest can be considered a direct evolution of the period started by Desprez, given that there are no sharp breaks like that of Ockeghem, who is rightly compared by many historians to the avant-garde of the '60s.

Then you, as a musicologist, can surely enlighten me.

Thallo, isn't it a bit like saying: the second Viennese school doesn't exist?

I also ask for more argumentation on the matter. Thanks in advance