Third Species - Intermittant Octaves or Fifths - Schoenberg's Counterpoint Book

[deux machina]

Hi folks,

I'm trying to work through Schoenberg's "preliminary exercises in
counterpoint".

Im up to 3rd species (in 2 voice), & am a little perplexed about the
use &/or abuse of intermittent fifths & octaves.

To quote Schoenbergs position on the issue (described in the first
species chapter on p 15) these intermittent parrallels should be
avoided in 2 & 3 voice exercises, even when approached in contrary
motion. (& then he says in certain circumstances, such as leap of a
fourth between them, it might be permissable if there is no other
option)

ie: [8 n 8] OR [5 n 5] - no good (n being some other vertical
interval)

However in third species this is becoming a little problematic. Arnie
seems to identify the odd intermittent 5ths & 8's in his examples,
however (assuming i understand "intermittant" correctly as per above)
there is scarcely an example amongst them where an intermittant octave
or fifth isnt evident, so why single out some & not others? (ie if an
interval of an 8 or 5 exists on any beat over sucessive tones in the
Cantus Firmus). After all, by virtue of having 4 notes per CF note,
statistically they are going to become a lot harder to avoid.

He doesn't exactly give a definition of what does or doesn't
constitute an intermittant octave or fifth in third species, so can
anyone shed any light on what might or might not be acceptable
practice? Their presence on strong or weak beats being a likely
contributing principle? (but there are both strong & weak beat
examples highlighted however as erroneous, to whatever degree...)

I'm actually enjoying these exercises, & i'm hoping to stick with
arnie for the course, so it would be great if someone could lay out
some Schoenberg friendly guidelines on the matter.

Thank you fine list people

regards

Tim (adelaide, australia)

[Steve Latham]

Post by deux machina
Hi folks,
I'm trying to work through Schoenberg's "preliminary exercises in
counterpoint".
Im up to 3rd species (in 2 voice), & am a little perplexed about the
use &/or abuse of intermittent fifths & octaves.
To quote Schoenbergs position on the issue (described in the first
species chapter on p 15) these intermittent parrallels should be
avoided in 2 & 3 voice exercises, even when approached in contrary
motion.

Really, the general consensus is that 5ths (and 8ves etc.) may be used as
long as they are approached obliquely or in contrary motion. Some others
allow also for the possibility of 5ths being aprroached in similar motion as
long as the upper part moves by step (most likely to justify the so called
"horn 5ths").

In 3 parts, the restriction is usually relaxed such that approach by similar
motion is OK if the 5th is not created by the outer voices (and again, if
so, some allow the exception that it's OK if the upper part moves by step).



(& then he says in certain circumstances, such as leap of a

Post by deux machina
fourth between them, it might be permissable if there is no other
option)

Other authors do make a distinction between "alternating" 8ves or 5ths when
the intervening interval does a specific thing - implies a change of
harmony.

Post by deux machina
ie: [8 n 8] OR [5 n 5] - no good (n being some other vertical
interval)

The general consenus is that an interveneing (your "n") interval does not
negate the effect of parallel 8ves or 5ths. This is especially true when "n"
falls on a weak beat. Again however, in 2nd species and up, the interval
created by n CAN negate the effect of parallels if said interval implies the
correct change of harmony.

Post by deux machina
However in third species this is becoming a little problematic. Arnie
seems to identify the odd intermittent 5ths & 8's in his examples,
however (assuming i understand "intermittant" correctly as per above)
there is scarcely an example amongst them where an intermittant octave
or fifth isnt evident, so why single out some & not others? (ie if an
interval of an 8 or 5 exists on any beat over sucessive tones in the
Cantus Firmus). After all, by virtue of having 4 notes per CF note,
statistically they are going to become a lot harder to avoid.

Where do these fall?
You can have a couple of different types of parallels:
Beat to Beat - and intervening notes or intevals do nothing to negate them.
Afterbeat to Beat - ditto
Afterbeat to Afterbeat - more dependent on the situation.
Interval to Interval (so from like the last 16th note of a beat to the next
beat).

There are plenty of examples in the literature where, if either enough time,
enough notes, or enough changes in harmony occur between the 5ths or 8ves,
the composer didn't see them as being problematic.

Post by deux machina
He doesn't exactly give a definition of what does or doesn't
constitute an intermittant octave or fifth in third species, so can
anyone shed any light on what might or might not be acceptable
practice? Their presence on strong or weak beats being a likely
contributing principle?

Absolutely.

(but there are both strong & weak beat

Post by deux machina
examples highlighted however as erroneous, to whatever degree...)

I'd have to see the actual examples (don't have this book).

But what I said above holds true. For example:

A G F G | A
C - - - | D

C /G (4th note) to D/A is still parallel 5ths.

G F D E | F
C - - - | Bb

C/G to Bb/F, //5

Usually though:
E F G E | A
C - - - | D
C/G (third note) to D/A is not //5. Only if the C appears on note three
(making it 2:1) would it be a problem (or other thing that draws attention
to the C/G pair on the third note).

Certainly though:
G E | A
C - | D

E G | A
C - | D

are bad, and even
A G | B A
C - | D

could be bad in certain contexts (the C/G to D/A pairs are created on the
afterbeats). Obviously the parallel 6ths on the beat take predominance, and
the melody will sound like an appoggiatura idea, so in most instances the
5ths will be negated. Remember, there's a famous Bach choral in which
parallal 5ths are created. But because the interval was created by two
different types of non-chord tones, Bach didn't "hear" them as such and used
them willingly.

Let me know if that helps Tim.

Steve

[deux machina]

Post by Steve Latham
Let me know if that helps Tim.
Steve

Thanks Steve,

That is a help, in as far as it reaffirms my own take on the subject.
i.e - it's difficult to come up with something definitive, & as
Schoenberg hasn't offered anything further as advice in the book,
well, i'll simply do the best i can.

I suppose on the positive side it forces me to simply make an
assessment of whether (if there are intermittant 5's or 8's in
sucessive bars) there is a justification or reason for it in melodic
terms because i'm adhering to some other principle (ie only steps
after a leap, melodic shape etc)

I hadn't been looking at the implied harmony too closely as yet (in 2
voice). i'll start giving that some consideration. I guess i should
also start looking at some Bach or something to get an idea of what he
does. this will improve my music reading skills to boot hopefully
(another part of the aim of this exercise).

when it comes to my own use, i'm probably aiming at some more
dissonant styles of counterpoint anyway, & it may be contrapunctal
only enough to assure some proper voice leading/ some general
definition of line against line, rather than being "strict 18thC"....
but i was keen to make sure i still avoid obvious bad practice
parallelism etc...

anyway, onward & upward, i welcome any further advice on the subject
if it is available....

[Steve Latham]

"deux machina" <***@d2.net.au> wrote in message news:***@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
[snip]

Post by deux machina
I hadn't been looking at the implied harmony too closely as yet (in 2
voice). i'll start giving that some consideration. I guess i should
also start looking at some Bach or something to get an idea of what he
does. this will improve my music reading skills to boot hopefully
(another part of the aim of this exercise).

And remember that most species counterpoint studies take their cue from Fux
who, in a sense, was not composing "real" music. I think you need to look at
Josquin, Bach, Mozart, Stravinsky, etc. and see how they handled things in
their own ways. And yes, can't hurt your music reading skills!

Post by deux machina
when it comes to my own use, i'm probably aiming at some more
dissonant styles of counterpoint anyway, & it may be contrapunctal
only enough to assure some proper voice leading/ some general
definition of line against line, rather than being "strict 18thC"....
but i was keen to make sure i still avoid obvious bad practice
parallelism etc...

I'll give you some further advice:
I think that there are some very general goals of counterpoint:
Horizontal identity
Vertical combinatoriality.

I hate to use those words, but the point is, each part needs to be both an
individual, and a part of the whole.
One of the reason parallel 5ths were avoided is that they lessened the
independence of the parts. Octaves even more so. Unisons even worse! But the
same can be said of parallel 3rds - they benefit in a diatonic system in
that you can't go more than two before you have a change of interval
quality, so you can get away with a few more in a row before independence
starts to wane, but too many and you've got a line that's harmonized in
thirds, rather than two independent parts.

In this kind of texture, with the fine balance between horizontal and
vertical, anything that draws attention to one other th other (unless
obviously intentional) would be "bad". Parallel 5ths draw attention to the
horizontal by way of them using the same interval structure. Constant
clashing unresolved dissonances draw too much attention to the vertical.
This is not to say that one can't draw attention to one or the other subtly,
or for brief passages and so on, but obviously, too much becomes counter to
counterpoint.

I think one of the problems with much modern counterpoint is that in an
attempt to use non-traditional verticalities in non-traditional ways, and
use non-traditional horizontal successions, it has made the two (or more)
parts TOO independent. So now we have, not punctum contra punctum, but
punctum versus punctum (forgive the non-latin). In much the same way as too
much dependence basically creates complete parallelism, or planing (where
vertical sonority becomes a single unit or entity, and it's basically
multi-monophony), too much independence creates a texture in which the
horizontal becomes unintelligible, creating complete pointillism (where the
entire texture becomes a unit, basically poly-polyphony). While each is a
valid thing, and maybe may even arrived at by reducing one part of the
counter-point equation to zero, it seems that we have historically been able
to find a middle point in whatever style in which that basic balance is
maintained.

Best,
Steve

[Miguel de Maria]

Post by deux machina
Hi folks,
I'm trying to work through Schoenberg's "preliminary exercises in
counterpoint".
Im up to 3rd species (in 2 voice), & am a little perplexed about the
use &/or abuse of intermittent fifths & octaves.
To quote Schoenbergs position on the issue (described in the first
species chapter on p 15) these intermittent parrallels should be
avoided in 2 & 3 voice exercises, even when approached in contrary
motion. (& then he says in certain circumstances, such as leap of a
fourth between them, it might be permissable if there is no other
option)
ie: [8 n 8] OR [5 n 5] - no good (n being some other vertical
interval)
However in third species this is becoming a little problematic. Arnie
seems to identify the odd intermittent 5ths & 8's in his examples,
however (assuming i understand "intermittant" correctly as per above)
there is scarcely an example amongst them where an intermittant octave
or fifth isnt evident, so why single out some & not others? (ie if an
interval of an 8 or 5 exists on any beat over sucessive tones in the
Cantus Firmus). After all, by virtue of having 4 notes per CF note,
statistically they are going to become a lot harder to avoid.
He doesn't exactly give a definition of what does or doesn't
constitute an intermittant octave or fifth in third species, so can
anyone shed any light on what might or might not be acceptable
practice? Their presence on strong or weak beats being a likely
contributing principle? (but there are both strong & weak beat
examples highlighted however as erroneous, to whatever degree...)
I'm actually enjoying these exercises, & i'm hoping to stick with
arnie for the course, so it would be great if someone could lay out
some Schoenberg friendly guidelines on the matter.
Thank you fine list people
regards
Tim (adelaide, australia)

Tim,
I'm going through Fux' counterpoint, so I would love to hear the
answer. Congratulations on working through this fine endeavor, and
good luck in your studies!