Friday, January 22, 2010

Lesson 8: Counterpoint 1

Ok, so Counterpoint. Counterpoint is one of the most annoying, boring things to learn. At its core, Counterpoint is simply the relationship between 2+ parts. However, what we'll be dealing with is "Species Counterpoint", which is basically a tutorial on how to write Common Practice Tonal music.

 Now, I'll be basically phrasing these like rules, and in a pedagogical sense, they should basically be thought of as rules. You'll notice, if you look at historical examples, that pretty much no one ever followed these rules to the letter. Bach is pretty much credited with writing the rulebook as a study on Counterpoint, and I'm not entirely sure that he ever wrote a piece that followed them completely.

It's important during this lesson to understand exactly what counterpoint is. Counterpoint is a set of, essentially, statistics. They're phrased as rules, but essentially when we say "No parallel fifths" we mean "Common practice music doesn't use parallel fifths". If parallel fifths sound good, then by all means, use them. However, they're likely to sound modal and a little off from normal tonal music. So if you're writing harmonies and don't want the sound of parallel fifths, then you'll know to avoid them without first writing them, hearing how they sound, and changing them.

Basically, if writing music is like taking an essay test, counterpoint is like having a cheat sheet sitting there right in front of your face, with all the relevant information. Just because you have the information doesn't mean you just copy it word for word into the answer, and hell, if you really want you can ignore it all and draw a smiley face instead of the essay. Sure, you'll fail the essay, but why are you taking that class then?

Ok, it's not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea(I hope)

Before we get to the rules, let's go over some terminology:
m3, M3,  P5, m6, M6 are "Consonances"
m2, M2, P4, 4+, 5o, m7, M7 are "Dissonances"

"Harmonic tones" are tones which occur as part of the harmonic structure(For instance, in a I chord in G Major, G, B, and D are harmonic tones)
"Nonharmonic tones" are tones which occur outside of the harmonic structure(In a I chord in G Major, A, C, E, and F# are nonharmonic tones)(Also, the chromatic alterations for more nonharmonics, but these are the ones in the key)

Now, with nonharmonic tones, there are two main distinctions, which are "Accented" and "Unaccented".  This doesn't refer to the articulation of the accent, but rather whether it falls on a strong beat(1 and 3 in 4/4, for instance) or weak beat(2 and 4 in 4/4)

Also, we have a few different types of nonharmonic tones.  Basically, we divide motions into steps and skips, and have a name for each type.

A neighboring tone is a tone that we approach by step that then returns by step to the original note.  These are divided into upper neighbors and lower neighbors.  As an example:

The starred note is an upper neighbor

passing tone is a tone that we approach by step and that we leave by step to a different note.  ex:

Now, we also have nonharmonics where the nonharmonic becomes a harmonic tone, due to a change in the surrounding harmonies.

An anticipation is a nonharmonic tone where we approach a note in a later chord before the chord happens.  Ex:

And a suspension is the opposite, where we hold a note from a previous chord through a second chord.

And now for the super-confusing ones.  These are combinations of steps and skips.

An escape tone is a tone that is approached by step, which resolves by skip.

And an appogiatura is a tone that is approached by skip, and resolves by step(I don't have a picture for this one

So essentially:
Step-Step(with same harmonic tone) = Neighbor
Step-Step(with different harmonic tones = Passing Tone
Step-Skip =  Escape Tone
Skip-Step = Appogiatura
Hold-Step = Suspension
Step-Hold = Anticipation  

Also, let's review the types of motion:
Parallel motion is motion where both parts are moving in the same direction by the same intervals.
Similar motion is motion where both parts are moving in the same direction by different intervals.
Oblique motion is motion where one part is moving while the other is not
Contrary motion is motion where the parts are moving in different directions.

So, let's start talking about the rules now:

For all species, we have the following rules:

1: The tonic at the cadence is to be approached by step.  If approached by below, the leading tone must be raised so as to make the final interval a semitone.
2: The melody cannot have sevenths of any kind, nor can it have intervals of an octave or larger.  Also, if the melody uses an ascending minor sixth, the next move must be downwards.
3:  If the melody has two skips in a row, the bordering interval must be consonant, and the second skip must be smaller than the first.
4: In any combination of three notes, the bordering interval must not be a tritone or a seventh
5: All parts must begin and end on a consonance.
6: Unless necessary, avoid intervals larger than a major tenth

Now, if you look up "counterpoint" on wiki, you'll see those as well as some other rules.  Some of these are covered by other rules, and some of these aren't actually rules, just suggestions to make the rest easier.  I just mention this in case anyone is wondering why mine differ... it's not that it's an incomplete list so much as things like "Use contrary motion" isn't really a rule of counterpoint, it just makes obeying the other rules of counterpoint  super-easy to follow.

Also, in general, outside of nonharmonic tones, parts should remain in consonance.

Now, We'll start with First Species Counterpoint. First Species is two voices, at one note per one note. We go back to early music terminology here, since that's where the roots are. The main melody is referred to henceforth as the "Cantus Firmus" or "C.F." The other parts are the "voices" or "lines".

1: As a bit of a refinement to the "consonant beginning/end", in First species you can only end on fifths, unisons, or octaves.  If the added line is below the C.F., it cannot be on a fifth.
2:  No unisons, except at beginning+cadence
3: No parallel fifths, or octaves
4: No "Hidden" fifths or octaves(I know, I'll explain it)
5: No more than three consecutive parallel sixths or thirds

 So the most flexible and most confusing of those is the "No hidden fifths" thing.  What is a hidden fifth(Or octave)?  A hidden interval is one that is approached by similar motion.  So if the C.F. goes E-G-A ascending then the added line going G-C-F ascending, for instance, would have a hidden fifth, as both approach the C/G fifth from below.  The main reason not to do this is that it's pretty damn striking(By this I mean it's unexpected.  Say you're walking down the street and some random guy decks you.  Pretty unexpected, right?  Unless you live in New York City), and is sort of like a lesser version of the parallel fifth.

Now, for the parallel interval rules, also known as like, half of the remaining rules, the main reason  we avoid them is because it sounds super modal with fourths(but no fourths anyways... same reason) and fifths, and gets pretty boring with thirds/sixths.  Remember the whole Organum Duplum thing, where we just copied melodies offset by a fifth or fourth, and that was an early form of harmony?  And now remember how a few refinements after that, the "Sweet British Sound" was the application of thirds?  Yeah, so we try to avoid going back to Organum Duplum when writing in tonal music.

Now, wiki says that one rule is to use contrary motion when possible.  This isn't a rule, but it is a pretty good suggestion.  Notice that with the parallel and hidden interval rules, we have rules governing similar and parallel motion.  Also, one of the rules is only the beginning/ending harmony, so we have only one species-specific rule after that that deals with a possibility that occur with Oblique or Contrary motion, which is the "no unisons" rule, and one general rule, which is the "no intervals larger than a tenth" rule.  Essentially, as long as you avoid having the parts be too far apart and you avoid unisons, as well as trying to stick to consonances, you will find it almost impossible to break the rules while using oblique and contrary motion.  Contrary/oblique motion are counterpoint Jesus.

And that's.... that's pretty much it for first species.  So on to second species.  Second species starts to get a little more complicated, and it's two notes against every one in the C.F.  We divide these into "accented" and "unaccented", again, like nonharmonic tones, the accented one is the one on the beat, the unaccented is the one off the beat.  In pure second species counterpoint, this is divided equally.  So against whole notes, second species has two half notes.

Second species starts getting a little more complicated here, too, because while the rules of first species pretty much carry over for the accented notes, we also have rules governing the unaccented note and the relationships between them.  So for instance, we can't have parallel fifths in consecutive accented beats.

So first off, in second species, we can either start with an accented or unaccented beat in the added line, meaning we can start with a rest, but after that we have to have both notes in the added line played, we can't for instance decide to have a rest mid-counterpoint.

Now for the added rules
1:  The accented beats must be consonances.  The unaccented beats may only be dissonances in passing tones.
2:  Unisons are allowed on unaccented beats, but not on accented ones.

Seems pretty simple, right?  The important thing to note with all these additions is that everything just keeps piling on, and we get a lot of situational rules, like the "No unisons" rule that only applies to accented notes in second species but all in first.  Also, we get interesting things like oblique motion being possible between accented notes using a consonant neighbor in the added line on the unaccented beats.

Next post we'll go on to 3rd and 4th, then touch a bit on florid(5th species).  After that, we can get to some voice leading stuff, and then we'll do the roman numeral chordal theory stuff for a bit.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Lesson 8: Romantic Period

Ok, this is our last history lesson(for now, at least), where we'll be talking about the romantic period. The reason I'm stopping here is that music sort of goes a little crazy after this, and it doesn't really have any relevance to the theory we'll be looking at for a while.

So we left of, so long ago, in the Classical period(Beethoven was sort of in between, but he's still historically speaking in the Classical period)

Now, romanticism was, as with all other periods we've looked at, not just in music.  Everyone everywhere was a "romantic" around these times.

A lot of times Beethoven's 3rd, the "Eroica" symphony, is cited as the beginning of the romantic period in music, 'cause shit was crazy.  The easiest way to think about it though is that basically it was the 19th century.  1815-1915 is closer to the dates, but basically just think 19th century and you'll be fine.

The romantic period takes the repression and structure of the classical period and kind of shits all over it.  There was still structure and all that in the romantic period,  but it was extended and played with a lot.  If I had to ascribe one aspect to Romantic composers, it would be "Personal expression".  While it's certainly possible and with enough listening relatively easy to tell, say, the difference between Haydn and Mozart, or Perotin and Leonin(This is about a billion times harder than Mozart/Haydn, too), almost anyone after a cursory listen could probably tell Wagner and Chopin apart.

Other than that, Romantic music was a lot heavier than classical, a lot denser, and in general bigger(There are exceptions, but Romantic music was not in general about a fine brush, it was taking the goddamn biggest brush you could find and painting in giant strokes).

So let's look at the general historical layout before some examples.

As I mentioned, Beethoven was pretty instrumental( in the development( of the romantic period.  However, Schubert was also a leader('ll stop now) in the field.(Those last two make more sense if you know that in Sonata-Allegro form, the sections are "Exposition", "Development", and "Recapitulation", and that Schubert was famous for composing Lieder)  Many people would argue that in fact Schubert was the first truly romantic composer, and there's certainly merit to that.  During the early 19th century, concert music was really expanding out of the "court musician" and much more into "People actually go and see this stuff" realm.  History buffs will note that this is also pretty much coinciding with the end of the whole Napoleonic thing, and the cultural changes that went along with that.  In fact, Beethoven was one of the first freelance composers, instead of being employed full-time by some rich snob.  This era also saw a big foray into modern folk music(I know, it's a weird idea), where folk poems and songs were set for, say, piano and voice, which were becoming more common in houses.

Slightly later into the Romantic period, we see composers like Chopin, Liszt, Mendelssohn, and Berlioz.  If you don't know those names, you should.  Chopin and Liszt are pretty famous for fucking pianists in the fingers, both of them have maddeningly difficult piano works.  Liszt also pretty much invented the recital, which at the time was basically just a small, virtuoso concert.  Now, by this point we're about mid-19th century, and a pretty important dude, called Richard Wagner came along.  Before I go into more depth with him though, I want to bring up another name that I just like because of the name:  Giuseppe Verdi.  The reason I like this name is that it translates to "Joe Green", which makes it a lot less impressive.

Anyways, Wagner.  Wagner was German, and, you know how Germans do it.  Wagner was BIG AND HEAVY.  Also, he started really working with the idea of Program music, which is essentially the beginnings of multimedia composition.  Wagner also worked with leitmotifs, which are essentially themes attached to a character or situation.  A later and pretty well-known user of leitmotivic composition is one John Williams.  You may have heard of him.  So for a leitmotif, think the Imperial March.  The music evokes the ideas of the Empire and that goes along with it.  As as small aside, letimotifs don't even have to really play the whole idea and program music can use little tiny cues.  There's one point in Episode III where Anakin is about to do something bad and evil(Spoiler alert), and the brass have a single note sting.  In that one note, with the specific orchestration, instantly everyone in the audience knows that it's a Darth Vader-y thing that he's about to do, and we've already got the idea of EMPIRE going through our heads.

Anyways, all that was kind of pioneered for real heavy use by Wagner.  His most famous is "Der Ring des Nibelungen", or "The Ring Cycle"(not a direct translation, just what it's known as).  This has a few pieces that you may have heard in it.

For instance:

 And right there we feel very specific things from the music.

In 1850, Europe... well it exploded a bit in a few ways.  Communication and travel got easier, cheaper, and faster.  One would think that this would sort of make music sort of amalgamate during this time, but as we know, Europe wasn't really all getting along all super-nice and agreeing with each other about everything.  Really, music was already pretty nationalistic during this point in time, and it got crazy more so, as music sort of became political expression in a lot of ways.

Wagner is, for instance, pretty clearly "German" music, and we have some very famous composers who are also known for nationalistic music.  I'm betting many of you have heard of, say, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, Prokofiev, and Rachmaninoff.  These guys were super-russian, and were writing super-russian music.

Stuff like this, for instance:

We've also got Saint-Saenes, who is about the most French composer there is,

 Sibelius is crazy British,

And so on.

Now, for one that many of us might know as well, we're also talking about one John Phillip Sousa.  He's pretty American as a composer.

This is basically the sort of stuff we're talking about.  I mean, sure, it's all consistently Romantic(Except for the American music.  DIRTY SMELLY EUROPEAN COMMUNISTS!  WE WILL HAVE NONE OF THAT!)

Anyways, the romantic period was pretty much this way until a dude called Arnold Schoenburg comes along. I won't talk about him too much now, but basically he looked at Music and figured that we were pretty much done with the whole tonality thing.  There's a common misconception that Schoenburg was a reactionary against music, but really he was going for an advancement of music, not a drastic departure.  Anyways, if we have time, I'll go into modernism, but for now, we'll just stick with going to about the 20th century where we are now and stop there.

And that's really romanticism.  Nationalist, personal, emotional, big, heavy.  And that's really history basically.  We'll go ahead and start counterpoint next.  And if you thought this was boring, just wait.