jazz counterpoint?

What is your take on this...? (I am andy-uk)

http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?t=42654

That "invitapriore" guy who first replied to you is exactly right. Chuck out Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum if you're reading it. It's a total waste of time. I have a counterpoint book from the 20's which complains about textbooks propgating the myth that all counterpoint is species counterpoint, and it's shocking that books today still regurgitate this myth.

I hate to make the same point I've made in the last three threads I've replied to, but it comes down to definitions: :blink:

1. The loosest definition of "counterpoint" is 2 or more voices, not singing in unison. But that's very general. So in theory, by this approach, any song with a melody and bassline is contrapuntal. This is the loose definition that "invitapriore" seems to take.

2. A bit more strict, you could say, 2 voice or more voices with distinct contours (i.e. polyphonic, and not homophonic). The melodies slot together. There develops an difference between metre (of the piece) and rhythm (of the melodies). This is the definition I would generally use.

And then there is the definition that is totally absurd, which many textbooks imply to be true:

3. You must have a cantus firmus in the tenor voice singing a plainchant melody in semibreves or breves and the other melodies SA and B must have shorter note values .. etc...

Don't be fooled. If you listen to the actual music of the Renaissance, you will find that very little music fits the 3rd definition, and when it does, it is a delibrate achaism.

So to say jazz cannot be contrapuntal because the pieces have no canti firmi, drives me mad :)

Also, someone should really point out that "threw out my college career" in the first post should be "throughout my college career"! :ermm:

Homophonic music can also be contrapuntal to some degree. Walter Piston thinks the same way. It's more a gray-scale thing than black and white. It is when you have two distinct melodic lines, independent in terms of contour and rhythm.

As for jazz, here is a book I am aware of that you might like to check (link):

Bill Dobbins - Jazz Arranging & Composing: A Linear Approach

Homophonic music can also be contrapuntal to some degree. Walter Piston thinks the same way. It's more a gray-scale thing than black and white. It is when you have two distinct melodic lines, independent in terms of contour and rhythm.

As for jazz, here is a book I am aware of that you might like to check (link):

Bill Dobbins - Jazz Arranging & Composing: A Linear Approach

*Sigh* Yes, jazz is often thought of as homophonic, but that is a gross generalization. I tend to think of jazz as highly contrapuntal, and even if you have a section where most instruments simply harmonize with the melody (thickened line voicings) you will find, as Kamen mentions, at least independent contours in most of the great arrangers/composers. I second the Dobbins book, and of course there is Rayburn Wright's Inside the Score. When studying the music see how the voices work against the bass line, listen for where instruments have independent lines/rhythms, listen for where instruments involved in thickened line voicings do not follow the contour of the melody, etc.... You will find an independence of lines in homophonic sections, and you will find highly complex contrapuntal writing in other sections. So in short response to andy-uk's post on the other thread, there definitely is counterpoint in jazz, and jazz music is not just homophonic (listen to some Gil Evans or Duane Tatro, for example, and you might think to revise your statement).

There's counter melodies in jazz too which I think is a solid example of independent lines. The countermelody plays a different rhythm then the main melody, and supports it, but never gets in its way.

What jazz do you think these guys are talking about when they say all jazz is homophonic? Big band? Cuz if you have a trio, homophony's almost impossible.

Especially for the rhythm section, counterpoint and polyphony is the goal. You play exactly what the rest of the band is doing, you're not adding anything. Thus, you play around the band, in the tracks, coming up with your own little lines to add to them. :cool:

And lolz at "threw out my college career". I think that was a subconscious mistake; he needed to tell people that he never used his college education, so he dropped it as a hint. :sleep:

Thx for the replies guys!

I just thought that on a tune such as "all the things you are" [in any setting] that the roadmap of harmony is fixed (but substitutions, etc can be used) and hence jazz improvisation would be in effect seen as "theme and variations".

The chords are previously "agreed" on and hence monophony...I thought that counterpoint generated the harmony by its action..

time to buy some books (and keep off wikipedia :facepalm: )

I still find it weird that i could notate some piano block chords and have a double bass playing lines in its lowest register and a guitar playing lines in its hightest register and that this can be called counterpoint... :blink: !!

I wouldn't call music in a "combo" setting to be contrapuntal. As Andy notes, piano/bass/guitar/drums playing time (comping) under a soloist isn't counterpoint...

Add a second horn and give it a contrapuntal line - BAM - counterpoint. Kind-of. ;)

You'll find counterpoint in much modern large-ensemble writing (i.e. Maria Schneider/Brookmeyer/et al) where the divide between Legit and Jazz is lessened to a degree where there IS no divide anymore...

Simple answer - counterpoint exists when there are two or more independent lines. Homophonic, heterophonic, contrapuntal are terms which describe how independent these lines are.

It would be more illuminating to discuss, based on independence of lines, the different types of counterpoint used rather than if there exists "jazz counterpoint".

The species is not entirely a waste of time. It is a valuable pedagogical tool. The mistake is to assume composers write with "species" counterpoint primarily in mind.

Interesting...I'm not a jazz person by any means, but I've always thought of jazz as being inherently contrapuntal without really thinking about it. I suppose I was considering the bass line - which is often quite active and melodic itself - interacting with the melody line; they're often quite independent of each other rhythmically.

Anyway, I feel like I total newb even talking about this in the same space with some of you guys! :lol:

Chuck out Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum if you're reading it. It's a total waste of time. I have a counterpoint book from the 20's which complains about textbooks propgating the myth that all counterpoint is species counterpoint, and it's shocking that books today still regurgitate this myth.

Noooo! I wouldn't chuck Fux. You have to start somewhere, and it's best to start at or near the beginning before branching out - and Fux "wrote the book," as they say, on the fundamentals of counterpoint and how it works. Guys like Haydn and Beethoven consulted the Gradus ad Parnassum throughout their careers, and both of them applied what they learnt there differently than Fux originally intended; Haydn carried his dog-eared copy around with him sometimes. I will agree that it shouldn't be anyone's last stop on the road to fuller understanding of what counterpoint is in the broader sense; as you rightly pointed out, counterpoint can be a lot more than Fux considered in his wildest dreams.

the divide between Legit and Jazz is lessened to a degree where there IS no divide anymore...

WHERE did my boxes go?!??

Definitions, definitions..who cares..