Fux's Gradus/Study of Counterpoint...help?

[paulc]

Can anyone who has read this book and worked through the examples help me out? The following topics are a source of confusion:



On page 22: '...From an imperfect consonance to a perfect consonance one must proceed in contrary or oblique motion'
On page 30: '...I moved by contrary motion following the rule: from an imperfect consonance to a perfect consonance one must go in contrary motion'
On page 32: '...against the rule: from an imperfect consonance to a perfect consonance one must go in contrary motion'


In all of the examples so far (up to page 36), contrary motion is used exclusively when moving to a perfect consonance.

(1) Do the rules allow you to use oblique motion when moving to a perfect consonance? I have felt this would be the best choice in a couple of cases.



On page 27: 'Contrary and oblique motion should be used as often as possible.'
On page 28: 'the rule that more imperfect than perfect consonances should be employed' , 'the imperfect consonances...are more harmonious than perfect ones' , 'many perfect consonances...would necessarily be lacking in harmony'
On page 36: 'Why did you allow the counterpoint to move above the cantus firmus...?...because otherwise I would have had to use direct motion up to this point, which would have resulted in less satisfactory voice leading'


In one of the examples (Fig 11), I chose to use a series of imperfect consonances one after the other as I felt this would sound more harmonious than the alternatives (per page 28). Only, this necessitated using much direct motion. The book limits direct motion (per page 27?) by using some less harmonious perfect consonances via contrary motion. I interpreted this as meaning that direct motion should be limited (my 7 vs. book 2) at the expense of harmony, so I tried to comply in the following examples. But...in Fig 13 the book uses a series of imperfect consonances (3) in direct motion. Huh!?

(2) Are the reasons for these seeming contradictions related to voice leading? Can anyone explain?


Finally, I know that people say you shouldn't limit yourself with rules when composing. I am adhering to them only while studying the exercises in this book.

Thanks,
Paul.

[ChemicalReaper]

OK, first I'm going to have to ask... are you studying this on your own or do you have a composition teacher? Having a teacher is really pretty important when you're learning music theory.

Honestly, I can't understand what the Fux he's talking about! But I will still try and answer your questions.

So consonance is a stable chord, dissonance is a... well... not-so-stable chord (generally, anything in minor is considered not-so-stable, which is kind of odd).

(1) Using oblique motion when moving to any perfect (or even imperfect) consonance is perfectly acceptable! Really super-strict music theorists might tell you otherwise, but from personal experience, my theory teacher has never complained about it.

(2) Direct (parallel) movement is bad (really bad) and should be avoided whenever possible. However, there is really only one exception (that I know) to this. Parallel octaves. Usually, they're about the worst thing you can do (except, of course, for parallel fifths). But, parallel octaces can really emphasize a theme and make it sound more powerful (think first violin melody doubled by cello and bass) in which case you will obviously have parallel motion BUT it is generally expected that you have other lines moving in a different direction (e.g. violas playing a countermelody).

(3) Honestly, that's just music theory in general! I have a theory book from 1911. Just like Fux, the wording is incredibly awkward, seems contradictory at times... I wouldn't really worry too much about it - just write music and take it to a composition teacher; he/she will gladly explain (in clear and non-contradictory English!) anything that is 'horribly illegal' in theory!

[paulc]

Hi ChemicalReaper, sorry for not acknowledging your reply sooner.


I'm reading the book on my own, no teacher. I've read the second chapter now (up to page 50) and things are starting to make sense. :)

In all of the examples I have encountered so far, only contrary motion is used when moving into perfect consonances (there are further restrictions in a couple of cases). This seems to be Fux's rule whether or not it is a good one. There are a couple of contradictions in the book: Alfred Mann's notes occasionally advise one thing and the examples suggest another. Mann's advice seems to be more plausible.

The rules I have come to use that have really allowed me to write better (first & second species) counterpoints are:

(1) First priority is to minimise skips (eg. limit C to E or C to F rather than C to D or F to G). In some cases they are unavoidable, usually when a -series- of direct motions is otherwise inevitable.

(2) Second priority is to minimise direct motion (either by employing some less harmonious perfect consonances, or using voice-crossing). It can be used, but only sparingly when doing so helps avoid skips.

(3) Third priority is to use more imperfect than perfect consonances. Allow exceptions according to the first two priorities.

I've found that adhering to these rules - you have to juggle the first two every now and then - along with the other chapter specific ones has allowed me to write less scattered counterpoints that more closely align with those in the book.


Paul.