[Smt-talk] MISSING THEORY COMPONENT?

[Ildar Khannanov]

To continue Christopher's argument:


counterpoint is a son of melody. More precisely, counterpoint is a
nickname; the real name is polyphony. Indeed, we do not combine points, we
coordinate melodies or voices (phone). For many practical musicians who
operate instrumentally and never reflect on theory this is as far as the
relationship goes. For theorists and evolutionists it is clear (it has
become clear already in the 6th century B.C.E.) that there is also a
grandmother, harmony.

Making the son the father of his mother and grandmother was a major
misconception of the Austrian theorist, the one who thought that he
witnessed the ashes of culture while it was the time of cultural prosperity.

This message is not inflammatory. However, music theory has never beed
cordial, so far as a remember it.

Best wishes,

Ildar Khannanov
Peabody Conservatory
drkhannanov at gmail.com


2014-05-25 19:27 GMT+04:00 Chris Bonds <chbonds1 at willy.wsc.edu>:

>
> On 5/23/2014 3:09 PM, Victor grauer wrote:
>
>
>  I have always considered the study of 16th century counterpoint (aka
> "species counterpoint") the ideal method for training in both melody
> writing and scoring. To simply ask students to produce "nice" or "good"
> melodies per se does not strike me as an effective pedagogical method. As
> there is nothing to work against, such methods are therefore, as I've
> complained in an earlier post, non-dialectical. When properly taught,
> taking students from the species exercises to the writing of simply two
> part, three part and four part motets, modeled on Palestrina and Lassus
> (Lassus especially), will make them aware of how melodies are formed in the
> context of an inter-relational tonal fabric that must be mastered to
> produce a meaningful result.
>
>
> Some have paraphrased your quote as suggesting that counterpoint is the
> parent of melody. I take the above to mean that the addition of voices
> places constraints on melody and creates a dynamic tension (or balance)
> between or among the parts. If that is what you mean, I agree with it. From
> the student standpoint, such exercises provide essential training in how to
> think about the possibilities and limitations of melodic writing. But the
> fact that melodies exist (e.g., plainsong) in the absence of counterpoint,
> and are considered good, suggests that good melody need not spring from
> counterpoint. I learned in counterpoint that there are principles of good
> melody writing, and the challenge of counterpoint is to observe those
> principles in the context of the complementary principles of good
> counterpoint--voice leading, consonance and dissonance, and so on.
>
> Christopher Bonds
> Wayne State College, Emeritus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140526/5cbaa174/attachment-0002.htm>