DAI

So when you write contrapuntal music yourself, how do you go about realizing harmonic progressions? do you just make sure that the essential tones are accented?

Uh I guess by "activation of the harmony" you mean arpeggiation? Also,how do you "manipulate" the augmented triads? Frankly I couldn't spot it in the score of your piece

Composers Phil, thanks for the detailed answer and the book suggestion! Although i don't see how your first system is atonal compared to the second (don't you use "dominants"?) I would like to know: Do you also have principles for employing non-harmonic tones? which ones? Do you use the same as in traditional harmony (resolution by step,etc..) or did you create your own ones? How do you employ your harmonic system in a contrapuntal context?Do concepts like scales and modulation exist in your non-traditional harmonic systems?

Do you use non-traditional harmonic systems? How do you go about creating them and applying them to your music? What are to you the essential aspects of a harmonic system?

How about 20th century Russian composer Oleg Eiges. His 4th Piano sonata is really epic, despite its short length. I especially love the ending. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCVpvfDsjts

Ok, so the answer is actually that there aren't any mathematically precise rules for determining chord progressions in contrapuntal music, rather one judges by ear or intuition which chords are the most prominent/important?

You could analyse the A as an auxillary tone if you suppose that g is still the implied harmony. But how do you determine that it really is? Maybe the harmony changed to f#-dim (with the nonharmonic g in the upper voice resolving to the chord-tone f#)

Of course i already know harmonic functions and all that stuff , i don't really see how it relates to my question? By which principle did you identify the A as an auxillary tone, whereas the lower B in the same metrical position in bar 3 isn't auxillary?

My question was actually HOW you determine, which tones/chords belong to the chordal skeleton. For example in bar3: why aren't the last two chords D-G and C-A considered in as "harmonic"? They don't even resolve to the supposedly implied harmony c-minor. Or in bar4: why isnt A-G considered as harmonic?. It's metrical position isn't even any weaker than that of the G major chord in bar 3.

I still didnt find a precise rule for determining which notes belong to the currently implied harmony and which dont. Look at this: http://www.harmony.org.uk/book/examples/ex_7p6.gif in the third bar: why are only c and G considered in the harmonic analysis?many different chords appear afterwards. By which principle do you identify that they are nonharmonic (and are they really?)

I would analyse it that way: The very beginning ist in D mixolydian. Than the A minor chord is used as a pivot chord to swap to D minor , and the first part ends with a plagal cadence (iv-I) with a picardy third. The rest of the piece is just D major.

Hi, is there any guide that describes how to imply functional harmony progressions in contrapuntal music? Most articles on counterpoint seem to be mostly concerned with which intervals are allowed and how dissonances have to be resolved but none explains properly how to combine this approach to composition with functional harmony.

The thing I actually wanted to understand is: How is being repetitive justified in fugue writing? Especially, if Fugue is considered the epitome of contrapuntal music, that would imply that being repetitive is considered better than being varied in a contrapuntal context. How do you explain that?

"Playing various ideas together" is the characteristic of most contrapuntal music, not just fugue. my issue is that in fugues usually the same idea is repeated again and again with close to no development.

So i guess most people actually agree with me??