The Use of Counterpoint in the Music of Ben Monder

[pamosmusic]

Homophony is also a rhythmic placement thing in my understanding.
Say one definition can be found here:
Texture – OPEN MUSIC THEORY.

Homophony is characterized by multiple voices harmonically moving together at the same pace.

Yeah but the notion of harmonic rhythm is anachronistic. We would also analyze polyphony as harmonically moving at the same pace, but both polyphony and homophony would have suspensions and the like all over the place. Problem being that when the rules of the techniques were developed, no one thought about harmony like that.

In my own brain I sort of think of like …. Lute or keyboard accompanying a single line as one thing. A Bach chorale as something in the middle. And the Missae Papae Marcelli as the other end of the spectrum. But the distinction is probably almost completely artificial.

For me it’s probably separation of the melody line from the accompaniment that makes a bigger aural difference. Not quite sure.

[James W]

Main melody backed by supported voices is not necessarily homophony. There is a contrapuntal way of doing the harmonic support of a main voice. That's the distinction I'm trying to make in this thread.

As Pamso says, main melody backed by supporting voices is the literal definition of homophony. And this holds true for most the repertoire - but I am willing to accept that there may be perceived a 'main melody' by other parameters in the music such as dynamics, timbre etc. But even if other parts of the texture are not as prominent but are still polyphonic, I still think that that qualifies as an overall polyphonic texture.

[pamosmusic]

A Bach chorale is the one that’s always difficult to define for me.

It’s obviously not the sort of freely unraveling sound of Palestrina counterpoint (or Bach counterpoint in other contexts) but also there’s the clear independence of the voices—contrary motion, etc.

So that’s always a fun one to think about. Whatever distinction Tal is looking for lives in there, I think. Just not sure I know how to put my finger on what it is.

[Tal_175]

I think we are getting to bogged down with definitions as is usually the case with theory threads.
It seems like some of you don't agree that there is a clear distinction in how counterpoint is discussed in a voiceleading sense vs in independent voice, polyphony sense.
That's one view. A harmonization of a distinct main voice with intricate voice leading of bass and middle voices is still homophony in this view. But I'm under the impression that in many contexts people consider the study of harmonizing voice movements also as counterpoint.

[James W]

A Bach chorale is the one that’s always difficult to define for me.

It’s obviously not the sort of freely unraveling sound of Palestrina counterpoint (or Bach counterpoint in other contexts) but also there’s the clear independence of the voices—contrary motion, etc.

So that’s always a fun one to think about. Whatever distinction Tal is looking for lives in there, I think. Just not sure I know how to put my finger on what it is.

True. It's one example of the music not entirely obeying the categorisation we give it. I suppose I would err on the side of a Bach chorale being polyphonic, thinking about how I listen to it and perceive it - while it obviously lacks the distinct rhythmic differentiation of a fugue, as you say there is definitely independence of voices.

[James W]

I think we are getting to bogged down with definitions as is usually the case with theory threads.
It seems like some of you don't agree that there is a clear distinction in how counterpoint is discussed in a voiceleading sense vs in independent voice, polyphony sense.
That's one view. A harmonization of a distinct main voice with intricate voice leading of bass and middle voices is still homophony in this view. But I'm under the impression that in many contexts people consider the study of harmonizing voice movements also as counterpoint.

Yes, I don't wish to get bogged down in this. And yes, in a homophonic texture the subsidiary voices may well still have intricate voice leading.

[Tal_175]

Yes, I don't wish to get bogged down in this. And yes, in a homophonic texture the subsidiary voices may well still have intricate voice leading.

I get that that is how you understand the definition. I think that's too simplistic and doesn't explain multi voice music well. In many instances the definitions of these terms are very vague for this reason. The thesis discusses some of these ambiguities. Page 17 is a good start.

[pamosmusic]

I think we are getting to bogged down with definitions as is usually the case with theory threads.
It seems like some of you don't agree that there is a clear distinction in how counterpoint is discussed in a voiceleading sense vs in independent voice, polyphony sense.
That's one view. A harmonization of a distinct main voice with intricate voice leading of bass and middle voices is still homophony in this view. But I'm under the impression that in many contexts people consider the study of harmonizing voice movements also as counterpoint.

I think the tough thing is the way you’re using the word “harmonize.” And maybe voiceleading.

The rules we use for voiceleading descend pretty directly from Fux-style counterpoint rules. But harmony the way we think of it was applied retroactively. So a lot of the music we analyze in modern harmonic terms was written according to rules of counterpoint, not rules of voiceleading as we think of them now.

An interesting one is the way Mick Goodrick voiceleads his cycles in seconds in and sevenths. They move in the opposite direction of the cycle … so the second descends in range and the seventh ascends — C E G goes to A D F.

He’s avoiding parallel fifths, I would imagine. So I guess I’m saying yes … I am saying there’s no clear distinction between counterpoint and voiceleading. There is a difference, but it’s not clear. It’s more of a continuum than two separate categories.

[pamosmusic]

Yes, I don't wish to get bogged down in this.

Oh, I do.

[ragman1]

3. Ragman … would you be so kind as to try and post more playing from your “bad days?”

Ah... so sweet, you don't believe I had bad days... :-)

[Christian Miller]

Yeah but the notion of harmonic rhythm is anachronistic. We would also analyze polyphony as harmonically moving at the same pace, but both polyphony and homophony would have suspensions and the like all over the place. Problem being that when the rules of the techniques were developed, no one thought about harmony like that.

You can say for baroque music, this is a decorated bass moving in fourths in whole notes or half notes.

the invention of the bass in the Renaissance and its slow development into generalbass or thoroughbass (often called figured bass, but often these basses are unfigured so I regard it as a bit of a misnomer) is a huge conceptual leap. The next is Rameau’s fundamental bass (1730!) but that took a really long time to catch on. C18 theorists reference it (and Mozart) but they still work from the bass not root movement.

As for Roman numerals that’s well into C20.

I’d hesitate to say that even romantic composers were sold on the idea of functional harmony and fundamental bass (root movement).

For example, that Tchaikovsky harmony book accepts that 5 3, 6 3 and 5 4 chords are inversions of the triad, but it’s almost superfluous to the pedagogy - he teaches like a c18 guy.

As for moderns, Schoenberg rejected figured bass as antiquated but this wasn’t universal, Hindemith has Roman numerals in his but the emphasis is on the same stuff, lots of figured bass. Boulanger taught the same stuff that the c19 Paris masters did, which is to say c18 figured bass oriented counterpoint.

(Piston was a Boulanger student wasn’t he? Havent got around to reading his book yet.)

Stravinsky said he found harmony boring, but liked counterpoint.

It’s interesting

(Incidentally Peter Schubert being a Boulanger student points out she always got students to play things at the keyboard. That’s a big thing right there.. anyway.)

In my own brain I sort of think of like …. Lute or keyboard accompanying a single line as one thing. A Bach chorale as something in the middle. And the Missae Papae Marcelli as the other end of the spectrum. But the distinction is probably almost completely artificial.

Of course a skilled continuo player from back in the day may well have been much more comfortable with outright composing elements such as contrapuntal lines and so on that a modern period performer interested in not getting fired might shy away from. Their attitude towards written music seems to be have been a bit more … jazz? Now we have ivory towers!

and then there’s this nuts stuff about added note chords

For me it’s probably separation of the melody line from the accompaniment that makes a bigger aural difference. Not quite sure.

Some of it is textural. I suppose Dowland’s music was in some ways polyphonically conceived sounds like accompanied melody because the voice obviously sticks out from the lute.

Much of it was published in a form where you could sing his songs in parts like a madrigal as well as the lute and solo voice format we’ve become accustomed to…

[pamosmusic]

Ah... so sweet, you don't believe I had bad days... :-)

Erm. Well, you’ve never sounded like Ben Monder, so I’m assuming all your days have been good?

[pamosmusic]

Some of it is textural. I suppose Dowland’s music was in some ways polyphonically conceived sounds like accompanied melody because the voice obviously sticks out from the lute.

Much of it was published in a form where you could sing his songs in parts like a madrigal as well as the lute and solo voice format we’ve become accustomed to…

Yeah there’s the case in point. Dowland with a singer feels very Melody-Accompaniment. But the same piece arrangement for solo lute or guitar makes the counterpoint jump out and smack you in the face.

[Tal_175]

I think the tough thing is the way you’re using the word “harmonize.” And maybe voiceleading.

OK, lets make it more concrete with an example. What would you call minor line-cliche played over a sustained melody note?

- A form of harmonization (re-harmonization) as the moving notes preserve a specific harmonic implication. ie a homophonic texture (if that's how you define homophony).
- Voiceleading.
- Counterpoint (oblique motion).
- Polyphony at the expanse of homophony.
- Some of the above.

[wolflen]

[QUOTE=ragman1; one that actually sounds like effing JAZZ? /QUOTE]

I find your critic on Monder interesting..

I was energized when Miles Davis said he didn't like the term "jazz"

I dont consider it a description of my music..and many other musicians work today.

the harmonic structures and melodic placement over them of past periods has changed..

players like Monder and many others are exploring advanced harmony with the aid of electronics
and multi voiced instruments that allow multi layered/delayed/ octave placement and displacement
and many other variations and configuration of sounds

the term jazz is held sacred by some and it seems, to them, there is only one way to play it within its parameters

its the 21 century and I embrace the exploratory journey of music

this is a jazz guitar forum...and it should welcome a new and different approach to an vital original music with its energy and its constant evolution
no matter what term is used to describe it

[Christian Miller]

OK, lets make it more concrete with an example. What would you call minor line-cliche played over a sustained melody note?

- A form of harmonization (re-harmonization) as the moving notes preserve a specific harmonic implication. ie a homophonic texture (if that's how you define homophony).
- Voiceleading.
- Counterpoint (oblique motion).
- Polyphony at the expanse of homophony.
- Some of the above.

Short answer - yes!

long answer….
depends what you mean by counterpoint.

often when you have a descending line cliche 1-7-6-b6 you find a melody that centres on degrees 5-4, often using the b6. Here are some examples

it don’t mean a thing
Blue Skies
insensatez/how insensitive
corcovado
no moon at all
Exit music for a film
hotel California
chim chim cheree

If you play these back to back the effect is quite droll (like the classic ‘Axis of Awesome’ viral video based around the ubiquitous I V VIm IV). In posh circles this is called Schemata theory but I think we are all vaguely familiar with the idea if we’ve spent time learning tunes. Coker’s ‘hearing the changes’ is an example of the idea.

However what gets over looked when people talk about this sort of thing through the chordal lens (as Coker does) is that the melody and bass often go together. For example the bass 1 5 6 3 goes with the melody 3 2 1 7 and so on. These pre-baked contrapuntal combinations are heavily used by every baroque and classical composer are still very much with us today. Look at Adam Neely’s discussions of Olivia Rodrigo and Adele for instance. Neely doesn’t use the term Schemata theory, but he thinks along these lines.

looking at the examples I gave it should be apparent that with a 1-7-b7-6 bass and 5-(b6)-5-4 melody there’s a lot of different options for chords, especially given the line cliche need not appear in the bass . For example (in Cm)
Cm G Bb F
Cm Cm(maj7) Cm7 Cm6
Cm G/B C7/Bb F/A
Cm B+ Cm/Bb
Cm Bo7 Bbm6 F/A
Cm Bo7 Bbm7 A7
etc
or even
C G/B Bb F/A
or
C B7b13 Bb13 A7

These chord progressions are quite different and yet they are based on the same contrapuntal framework. we decide the nature of the other voices based on counterpoint with the melody and bass/line cliche, not through functional or modal relationships. (In jazz we think of this as a reharmonisation strategy)

So that’s what I mean by a contrapuntal understanding of harmony.

However it’s really not what most people mean by counterpoint. This isn’t what the author in the OP link means.

In this case you’d have to ask - is it. 1-7-b7-b6 line in a pop song, or in a baroque choral piece for instance? So it’s context dependent.

[Christian Miller]

I’m not sure Ben gives a monkeys about sounding like jazz

[ragman1]

I find your critic on Monder interesting..

I was energized when Miles Davis said he didn't like the term "jazz"

I dont consider it a description of my music..and many other musicians work today.

the harmonic structures and melodic placement over them of past periods has changed..

players like Monder and many others are exploring advanced harmony with the aid of electronics
and multi voiced instruments that allow multi layered/delayed/ octave placement and displacement
and many other variations and configuration of sounds

the term jazz is held sacred by some and it seems, to them, there is only one way to play it within its parameters

its the 21 century and I embrace the exploratory journey of music

this is a jazz guitar forum...and it should welcome a new and different approach to an vital original music with its energy and its constant evolution
no matter what term is used to describe it

I don't really know what you're on about. If I hear some Muddy Waters or Robert Johnson I think 'blues'. If I hear that clip by Joel Frahm playing My One And Only Love, which is a standard, I think 'jazz'.

I'd be foolish to think otherwise because that's exactly what it is, the sax, piano, bass, drums, and all the rest of it. The label is for convenience, for identification, and is accepted by common consent. So I see no problem with that.

When you say you don't consider the word 'jazz' as a fair description of your music only you know why; I don't know what your music sounds like.

As you say, Monder is experimenting with harmony and different ways of playing his instrument in relation to this tune. I see nothing wrong with that.

Whether it's 'jazz' or not I wouldn't know, the word is malleable, there's no one, fixed, definition of it. And, as you say, that kind of music is constantly changing, evolving, being re-interpreted.

There are certainly those who would rather consider only one interpretation of the word but that's their affair. Human beings are very good at that. Holding on to only one fixed definition of something gives them a feeling of certainty. Unfortunately it also makes their thinking rigid, invulnerable, closed off, fundamentalist, and that is destructive, uncreative.

I know you think that's what I was doing when I said I preferred the Frahm to the Monder but that's just personal taste. We're allowed personal taste whether it's in music, food, fashion, or anything else.

But personal taste doesn't imply rigidity or isolation of thought. It's merely a subjective response, not a prejudice. That taste might well be prompted by age or character, and so on, but it doesn't imply exclusivity. Because one prefers colour X doesn't mean a dismissal of all other colours, it would be ridiculous.

As you say, let's hope this forum doesn't succumb to rigidity or exclusivity otherwise it too will become staid, stuck in the past. To be healthy it must flow, be open to new ideas and ways of doing things. Otherwise I doubt if it's worth being here at all.

[ragman1]

I’m not sure Ben gives a monkeys about sounding like jazz

Absolutely. On the other hand it's not classical, opera or blues so it would probably classed as jazz these days. It's probably more individual interpretation or experimental music even if he is using a recognisable jazz standard as a vehicle.

But labels are only for convenience, like in a library or record shop. The label isn't the thing itself.

[ragman1]

panasonic

You wanted to know what a bad day sounds like. They don't make 'em like this any more :-)

[pamosmusic]

Panasonic.

sigh.

[ragman1]

Aw, you swooned. That's nice

[Tal_175]

I think this source does a good job at showing the transition between harmonic counterpoint to more independent (florid) counterpoint:
Introduction to Two-Part Counterpoint – Harmony and Musicianship with Solfege


Also the complete book is also available for online view for those who are interested:
Introduction – Harmony and Musicianship with Solfege

[pamosmusic]

Yeah this is kind of the same approach Fux takes with the different species of counterpoint.

[Christian Miller]

Sorry to bang on about the interview I posted, and to do a classic ‘acshually’ post, but Schubert notes that people think Fux is synonymous with pure Palestrinian counterpoint.

In fact, Fux was writing in the late baroque era and as a result represents a backwards view at a classical style in the context of the music of the time. In this he might be more like Schenker or Reimann looking back at the c18 classical style.

Schubert’s work is much concerned with exploring how counterpoint grew out of improvisational practices and revitalising these approaches… which is REALLY cool.

also this is fun