Is counterpoint really worth studying nowadays?

I am suspecting that the use of "bag of tricks" was more a poor choice of words than any indictment of the value of counterpoint.

counterpoint is, as has been said in this thread, one of many useful tools which a composer may turn to when working.

the value of counterpoint lies in its focus on line.

DO study counterpoint. The biggest reason that make me NOT a good composer until now is my limited understanding of counterpoint. Vertically, bad counterpoint caused not only bad harmonization but also bad orchestration.

Secondly, I fully agree with QC's post.

Me too.

I'm training, kinda like John Williams, as a classical composer. So there are plenty of things that I've learned that are "ok" in modern music but outlawed in classical music, such as "no parallel fifths" and "don't double the leading tone!"

Counterpoint is 100% worth studying. I've written a few inventions, one for harpsichord, two for piano, and I'm working on a fugue. Those would be impossible without counterpoint.

Not to mention, countermelodies make music sound more professional - if every voice in a piece is moving downwards or upwards at the same time, it can sound amateurish.

Fux's entire book can be boiled down to one simple rule: no direct motion into perfect consonances is allowed. That means no parallel 8ths (octaves) or 5ths.

If you know the other basic rules of composition/harmony/part writing (no 6/4 chords, preparation/resolution of dissonances and major/dominant 7th chords, etc) and practice decent voice leading then you should be for the most part fine with just that one basic simplification of counterpoint rules.

:toothygrin:

Parallel 5ths and 8ves occur in music all the time

All the time

All the time

Then why even have music courses? If you don't want music schools to teach MUSIC theory and rules at all then why have music school? Why not just tell everyone "Just write whatever notes you want to write randomly and that's fine, there's no rules." I don't quite see your logic.

The composer sets and abides by his own rules. Last time I checked this was a free society, and no one can tell me what I can or can not do when it comes to whatever music I create. I mean the general "I" as in anyone who creates anything. Younger writers tend to lose sight of that, but there is no outside force telling you what to do, YOU govern what it is your music must do, what ends it must achieve.

The composer sets and abides by his own rules. Last time I checked this was a free society, and no one can tell me what I can or can not do when it comes to whatever music I create. I mean the general "I" as in anyone who creates anything. Younger writers tend to lose sight of that, but there is no outside force telling you what to do, YOU govern what it is your music must do, what ends it must achieve.

You are 100% correct there. A composer can technically write whatever he wants.

However, certain things are still good to help further your knowledge of music theory. If you know what sounds good and what sounds bad, then you can essentially write anything and you (hopefully) won't have too many complaints.

Hello,

I've done a synopsis of the first part of Gradus on my website,

at http://homepage.eircom.net/~gerfmcc.

The site includes Java applets which allow you to enter your own

counterpoint to each cantus firmus which Fux provided in each of the five species. I had to take down species 2 thru 5 applets but they'll be back up within a week. The applets will analyse your counterpoints

and provide comments on their conformance to Fux's rules.

I've got to say I loved Gradus, Fux's attitude to pedgogy shines through,

he must have been a fine teacher. Whatever you think about it as a

compositional instruction manual, it is unquestionably one of the classic

texts in musical literature. It must say something that Bach, Haydn,

Beethoven, Strauss and Hindemith are among those who are known to have had high regard for it.