Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

CHAPTER I

THE PREMISSES OF STRICT COUNTERPOINT

I. THOSE Who have read the various treatises on the subject of Strict Counterpoint must have been struck with the fact that between some of them there are grave discrepancies. Indeed, the same example may be criticized by different theorists as being correct or incorrect.

For instance, one theorist will say that in the following example,

Ex. I.

the second minim (E) is incorrectly quitted by leap, because it is no part of the chord G, B, D, which is implied on the first minim, and that two chords in a bar should not be used. Another theorist will argue that as E is concordant with G, it is free to be quitted by step or leap. This is not a question of good or bad effect, but one of authority.

Again, in the next example,

Ex. 2.

one theorist will say that the second minim (D) is incorrect, as it implies a second inversion, which is forbidden. Another will say that as it is concordant with the B it is correct. As in the first example, this is not a question of good or bad effect, but of authority.

Further, another theorist would omit the following from his scheme of technique altogether,

Ex. 3.

(a)

his argument being that only common chords and their first inversions, and the first inversion of the diminished triad, can be used, and therefore the combination at (a) is outside the scheme. Another theorist will say it is quite correct, and the G may be regarded as a kind of appoggiatura to the A.

Two more points may be advanced as illustrations of the diversity of teaching that has arisen.

Some say that the melodic interval of a diminished fifth may be used, if the melody at once proceeds to some note within the interval:

Ex. 4.

Others say it may not be used.

Finally, one theorist allows the use of four quavers in succession:

Ex. 5.

Others forbid it.

Thus there are conflicting opinions upon four vital points: (a) the number of harmonies allowable in a bar, (b) the scope of the harmonic scheme, (c) the nature of melodic progression, (d) the nature of melodic rhythm.

2. Diversity of opinion has been caused by two great defects in the method of teaching the subject:

(a) In the process of modernizing the subject, the substitution of the terminology of harmony for the original system of

intervals has led to a complete misapprehending of the harmonic scheme as it really stands.

(b) The subject of Strict Counterpoint is never taken beyond its merely technical stage, so that in process of time it has come to be regarded as an abstract study, and its rules have been modified by theorists with no reference to the original premisses. To say the least, this seems a very unscholarly procedure. But it was largely due to an ignorance of the fact that there were any original premisses at all in actual composition.

Dr. Pearce, in his Academic Counterpoint (p. 7), says that the rules of Counterpoint are the 'practical result of common everyday experience and observation of those natural laws which must always govern the principles of acceptable tone-combination. Such rules are peculiar to no particular age or period.' But it is not in regard to rules of this nature that there is grave diversity of opinion. Theorists do not in the main differ as to what combinations sound bad or good, but they differ as to what good combinations may be used or may not be used. And this question is one entirely of period and not of expediency. The view that it is one of expediency results in some of the rules being non-existent in the technique of any age or period. Further, it has led to a restriction in harmonic scheme which was never present. And the absurd point is that those theorists who teach this restricted scheme are clamouring for an extension which has been available all the time, if they would only see things aright.

3. It will be well to consider in some detail the view of expediency in reference to limitations in technique, because it will show us how theory has gone astray, and also how illogical the position becomes.

The average student enters upon a course of harmony, and after having proceeded say as far as the dominant seventh, it is thought well that he should have a course of Strict Counterpoint, so that he may learn to make his parts more interesting and individual. Now, in order that he may pay the greatest attention to the melodic interest of his parts, his harmonic scheme is to be of the slenderest description-only common chords and their first inversions, and the first inversion of the diminished triad.

He is to have a given part moving quite slowly in semibreves, and to this he is to add parts moving in certain definite rhythms, using one chord a bar.

This represents the average student's and the average teacher's view in reference to the premisses of Strict Counterpoint. Approaching the subject from this point of view, chiefly because no other one seems possible, the modern theorist proceeds to be logical.

He says, two chords in a bar cannot be used, therefore we must forbid

Ex. 6.

The six-four cannot be used; let us be honest and obey the spirit of the law as well as the letter. Therefore let us forbid

Ex. 7.

and of course,

Ex. 8.

Prepared sevenths are naturally outside the scheme.

This is the logical result of a premiss which is, however, entirely false. It serves to show the process by which textbooks have shown a tendency to restrict harmonic progression.

Then, as the subject gets modernized, theorists think that it is really rather absurd to be so strict in reference to melodic progression. And so in this sphere we get extensions of original principles, such as

Ex. 9.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »