<div dir="ltr">To continue Christopher's argument:<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>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. </div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This message is not inflammatory. However, music theory has never beed cordial, so far as a remember it.</div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes,</div><div><br></div><div>Ildar Khannanov</div><div>Peabody Conservatory</div>
<div><a href="mailto:drkhannanov@gmail.com">drkhannanov@gmail.com</a></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-05-25 19:27 GMT+04:00 Chris Bonds <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chbonds1@willy.wsc.edu" target="_blank">chbonds1@willy.wsc.edu</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000"><div class="">
<br>
<div>On 5/23/2014 3:09 PM, Victor grauer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:garamond,new york,times,serif;font-size:14pt"><br>
<span></span>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:18.6667px;font-family:garamond,new york,times,serif;background-color:transparent;font-style:normal"><span>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.</span></div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
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.<br>
<br>
Christopher Bonds<br>
Wayne State College, Emeritus<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Smt-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org">Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org" target="_blank">http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>