( 27.

9 )

CHAPTER XX.

COUNTERPOINT.

IT only remains to say something about counterpoint. This

is music written in a series of different parts for voices or
instruments, each part having a melody of its own, and
yet all combining, when performed together, into a har-
monious whole.
The first kind of compound music used that had any
pretension to method and system was contrapuntal. Har-
mony grew out of it, but did not supersede it, for the use
of counterpoint, as one of the most interesting features of
music, has lasted down to our day. It is true that we
often get harmonious combinations of notes without any
distinct separation of the various " parts " which produce
them; but the highest class of music is that in which the
two things are combined; and for the obvious reason, that
then the mind gets a double interest at once, namely, that
of the melodies of the separate parts, and that of the har-
mony of their combination.
We have here to do only with the foundation of the
rules that have been established for the composition of
counterpoint. And these are of two kinds : first, those
which apply to the structure of the parts themselves; and
secondly, those which affect their combination with each
other.

In the first place, the various parts are to be considered

singly, and are to be treated each as a separate melody;
consequently, in writing them, certain rules of melody are

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 280 THE STRUCTURE OF MUSIC.
to be adhered to. In strict counterpoint the various parts
are supposed to be voices (indeed, in German, the word
Stimmen, " voices," is always used to denote the separate
parts of a contrapuntal composition), and the rules were
originally so framed as to facilitate the performance to the
singers. The old musicians found out by experience that
certain skips, chromatic transitions, and so on, were
awkward and difficult for singers to take, especially when
liable to be distracted by the other voices, and conse-
quently, in strict counterpoint, these progressions were
forbidden.

Then, secondly, there is a class of contrapuntal rules

which have to do with the combination of the parts with
each other. We cannot here go through the whole code,
but a brief glance at some of them will illustrate their
nature and origin.
Take, as the simplest form, the combination of two
parts or voices together, note against note. In strict
counterpoint the two notes must, when combined, only
make consonant combinations with each other, dissonant
combinations being forbidden. The reason of this rule is
evident; the singers had to be guided by their ears in the
justness of their intonation, and the consonant combina-
tions were easier to sing in tune than the dissonant ones,
as well as pleasanter in effect.
Then there is a rule against what are called false rela-

tions; for example, in the following passage

-&-
the Cj in the second combination is said to have a false
relation to the CfJ (an octave lower) in the first, and the
progression is consequently forbidden. The reason of this
is quite clear: the singer of the upper part would, having
his neighbour's CEj on his ear, find a difficulty in taking
the C| promptly and in tune; and it is to the advantage
of the music that this difficulty should not exist.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 COUNTERPOINT. 281
There is also an analogous objection to the relation of
the, tritone; e.g., such a passage as the following

would be forbidden in the strictest counterpoint. This

rule arose from the old prejudice against the " Mi contra
Fa" it being assumed that the singer of the first part,
having M3 neighbour's F impressed on his ear, would have
a difficulty in intoning correctly the " diabolical" interval
BH coming after it.
In other species of counterpoint, where several notes in
succession are allowed to be used in one part against one
note in the other part, discordant combinations are allowed
to enter, thus—

-s-

but under the restriction that the discordant notes are to

be taken and quitted, not by skips, but by single degrees
of the scale. The reason obviously is, that the voice by
this means is enabled to take them without difficulty,
notwithstanding their want of consonant relation to the
notes they accompany.
Similarly, in another species, discordant notes may enter
by syncopation, thus— ^~~m~^~ ^ jirizsz:] for here the

singer, being already on the note, has no difficulty in

sustaining it. But the discord must be resolved, for the
reasons already given in Chap. xix.

These are only a few examples of the rules laid down;

but they will suffice to show that they have their origin
in purely artistic expediency, in order to meet what, at
the time such rules were framed, were considered neces-
sities for good vocal performance.
Of course with instruments these necessities do not

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 282 THE STRUCTURE OF MUSIC.

occur, as the players can easily take any intervals they

please, and hence the greater laxity with instrumental
counterpoint; also, in vocal counterpoint in modern days,
the ears of singers are so much more accustomed to the
sound of discords that the intervals formerly so difficult
become easier, and hence the rules for this are also relaxed.
But still, to get vocal music well done, nicely in tune, each
part should be easily singable; and therefore, although the
old rules are not absolutely imperative, it is desirable they
should be kept in mind, and attention to them, so far as
is consistent with the character of the composition, will
always improve its effectiveness.

"We have postponed the mention of one rule of counter-

point which is very peculiar, and which it is necessary to
discuss more fully, as its nature, origin, and import have
given rise to much speculation. This is the law, so well
known to all musicians, forbidding what are called con~
secutive octaves or fifths—that is, the motion of one part in
octaves or perfect fifths with another part.
For example, the following passage
A B

contains consecutive octaves at A and consecutive fifths at

B. The Germans use the term parallel instead of consecu-
tive, which perhaps conveys the meaning more accurately.
This rule is so thoroughly established, that the breach
of it, generally speaking, is considered the highest crime
a writer can commit; and the necessity of conforming to
it is one of the first lessons given to students of composi-
tion. On this account, too, so sensitive do the ear and eye
become, that the sound of a parallel octave or fifth in a
composition when performed, or the sight of such a thing
in a written score, becomes almost painful to a well-
educated musician.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 COUNTERPOINT. 283
The rule is, moreover, of universal application, not only
to the older style of writing, but to modern music of all
kinds, both vocal and instrumental.
We have then to inquire, What is the foundation for
such a stringent rule ? And we will take the two ele-
ments of it in turn, as they differ considerably in nature.

In the first place, then, why is it forbidden that two

different parts should move together in parallel octaves ?
It requires but a very little consideration to show that
the prohibition cannot be based on any natural or physi-
cal objection to such a progression. If we sound any
succession of notes on a bright-toned instrument, we
know perfectly well that, each of the notes being accom-
panied by the natural harmonics of its octave and its
double octave, we get the very thing; and hence, so far
from being prohibited, consecutive octaves are held up to
us by nature as a model to be imitated rather than avoided.
But, more than this, in music of all ages, ancient as well
as modern, the movement of different voices and instru-
ments in consecutive octaves, for long passages together,
has been practised without the slightest objection. Indeed,
it constitutes a large and important feature in modern
compositions. Hence, there can clearly be no objection
to parallel octaves on natural grounds. The objection is
entirely an artistic one, as can soon be shown.
What is counterpoint ? It is a series of different melo-
dies going together.
When a man and woman sing the same melody, moving
in octaves to each other, the melody is the same ; and here
the distinguishing feature of counterpoint, i.e., the com-
bination of different melodies, fails. In other words, such
a combination is no counterpoint at alL
If, then, we profess to use different melodies, and yet, in
any part of them, allow two voices to move together in
octaves, in that part the composition ceases to be true
counterpoint. We profess to keep the melodies different

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 284 THE STRUCTURE OF MUSIC.
throughout; but wherever consecutive octaves occur, this
condition is broken, and for this reason, and this only, are
consecutive octaves forbidden.

The rule as to parallel fifths is much more difficult to

account for, and has always been a great puzzle.
It is asserted, and generally believed, that there is
something naturally repugnant to the ear in such suc-

cessions as these— 7/K o o—^—^-fl And we have cer-

tainly this great practical distinction between consecutive

octaves and consecutive fifths, that we do not find, in
modern music, successions of perfect fifths used in the
same way as successions of octaves.
But still it is undeniable that any series of musical
sounds will be accompanied naturally by consecutive
fifths as well as by consecutive octaves; and with this
example in nature before us, it certainly seems difficult
to say that such sequences are forbidden by natural
laws.
We are bound to distrust here the appeal to the ear
which we have so often protested against. It cannot be
denied that a succession of perfect fifths in counterpoint
sounds very objectionable to musicians. But it must be
recollected that from the first moment any musician began
to study composition, he was taught to hold consecutive
fifths in abhorrence; and it is to be expected that the
result of this must be to make him believe that they are
naturally objectionable. If there is really any physical
or physiological cause for the antipathy, it ought to be
capable of being shown; if it cannot be shown, we have
a right to presume it is merely the effect of education
and habit, and therefore is of no weight in the logical
argument. We know one thing by experience, namely,
that these fifths do not sound offensive to those who hap-
pen to be ignorant of the rule against them. There are

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 COUNTERPOINT. 285

many persons who have learnt music practically, and been

accustomed to it all their lives, but who have never had
a lesson in harmony or composition; and if such people
attempt to write music in parts, they will use consecu-
tive fifths without the slightest hesitation, and not see
anything objectionable in them;—rather a strong argu-
ment, it would seem, that the objection arises chiefly from
a knowledge of the rule.
Very few writers on harmony have given themselves
the trouble to say, or to think, anything about the ex-
planation of this rule. They have usually taken it for
granted, as a self-evident proposition, that fifths are to
be abhorred and avoided. It is interesting to see, how-
ever, what has been said by some of the more thoughtful
writers.
Hauptmann expresses himself on the subject in this
way (p. 65):—
" For proficients in contrapuntal harmony, the prohibition of
parallel fifths is unnecessary ; for a right feeling for the essence of
progression will spontaneously exclude them.
" With a parallel fifth, however it may be covered, the significa-
tion will always make itself heard, that against a first triad which
stands as a beginning, a second triad is endeavouring to set itself up
also as a beginning. This gives the impression of egoism among the
chords (AJckordegoismus), which destroys the unity of the compo-
sition.
" Octaves and fifths are forbidden with equal propriety, for botli
have a bad effect; but the reason of the bad effect differs in the two
cases. With octaves we lose the necessary variety in the melody;
with fifths we lose the necessary unity in the harmony.
" Octaves may be allowed between parts that do not pretend to
variety, but fifths never, since an unconnected harmony belongs to
no proper artistic system."

Kichter, after explaining the object of the rule against

octaves, says (p. 16) :—
" The ground of the rule against fifths is more difficult to establish,
although people have been fully convinced of its necessity; and

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 286 THE STRUCTURE OF MUSIC
many endeavours have been made to express this necessity clearly
and definitely. I offer the following views for consideration :—
" ' Every form of chord, which is included chiefly between its root
and fifth like a circle, let it be otherwise constituted as it may,
represents in itself a closed whole. And since harmonic connexions
can only be effected by one chord passing into and upon others, it is
evident that two chords with such fixed boundaries, fifth after fifth,
cannot pass into each other, but must, when they stand side by side,
appear unrelated and unconnected.
" ' Whenever, therefore, a perfect fifth appears, it will carry with it
its character of limitation (Abgrenzung), and the disagreeable quality
of the succession of two perfect fifths will be found to be in their
want of connexion—in their isolation.'"

He mentions many cases where the rule may be relaxed.

Helmholtz goes into this matter, but not very clearly.
He points out (p. 559) forcibly by several arguments that
consecutive fifths are not disagreeable to the natural ear,
instancing the constant presence of them in all brilliant
tones, and in the compound stops of the organ. He says,
therefore, that the law against them can only be founded
on their infringing the laws of artistic composition.
He appears to consider the rule an extension of the one
for octaves, and justified by the same grounds. He says
that twelfths (which may be considered as representing the
fifths), when used as a consecutive accompaniment, merely
strengthen the fundamental sounds, and do not add any new
independent element to the harmony; and hence an ac-
companiment in twelfths or fifths is a breach of the artistic
propriety which would require independent composition.
He adds—
" The prohibition of consecutive fifths was perhaps a reaction
against the first rude attempts at polyphonic music, which were con-
fined to an accompaniment in fourths or fifths, and then, like all
reactions, it was carried too far, in a barren mechanical period, till
absolute purity from consecutive fifths became one of the principal
characteristics of good musical composition."

Helmholtz's view as to the contrast between the old

diaphony and the later counterpoint is corroborated by

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 COUNTERPOINT. 287

other authorities. Coussemaker says, speaking of the

former—
" La diaphonie, dans son origine, n'avait pour destination que le
reinforcement de la melodie principale par l'addition de quintes,
d'octaves, et de quartes, entreme'le'es aocessoirement comme les sous
secondaires dans le jeu de mixture de l'orgue."
And we may gather the same argument from the fol-
lowing extracts from Zarlino (Istituzione Armoniche, 1571),
who was the first, after counterpoint had been well estab-
lished on good models, to reduce it to rule. He says :—
" Vietavano i piu antichi compositori il porre due consonanze per-
fette di uno istesso genere e specie, contenute nei loro estremi da
una proporzione istessa l'una dopo 1'altra, movendosi le modulazioni
per uno o per piu gradi; come il porre due o piu unisoni, over due
o piu ottave, overamente due o piu quinte et altre simili; conci6 che
molto bene sapevano che I'armonia non pud nascere se non da cose
tra loro diverse, discordante, e contrarie, e non da quette che in ogni
cosericonvengono."
He then makes, in illustration of this principle, the
philosophical remark that Nature produces no individual
of any species which is exactly similar to any other indi-
vidual ; and he adds—
" Debbe adunque ogni compositore imitare un tale e tanto bello
ordine ; perci6 che sara riputato tanto migliore quanto le sue opera-
zione si assimiglieranno a quelle della natura."
This makes it conclusive that the original founders of
the rule forbidding consecutive fifths based it entirely on
the same ground as that forbidding octaves and unisons,
namely, the essential similarity of the two parts in such
progressions, and the necessity of avoiding this, by con-
trariety and diversity, if the good character of the counter-
point was to be maintained.

At the end of the history of harmony, allusion was

made to the felicitous description given by Dr. Hullah,
of counterpoint and harmony respectively, by the terms
horizontal and perpendicular music; and attention was

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 288 THE STRUCTURE OF MUSIC.
called to the change that took place about the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries, by greater prominence
being given to the vertical element or harmony. Since
that time the interest of composers in the horizontal
element, or counterpoint, has unfortunately much fallen
off. Some few later men of eminence, among whom
Mozart and Mendelssohn shine prominent, have indeed
cultivated and written good counterpoint; but the majority
of modern writers look on it as an antiquated and ex-
ploded art, and trouble themselves so little about it, that
it might almost be considered extinct. It is doubtful
if any musician now alive could write a motet which
should be mistaken for Palestrina, or a madrigal which
could be attributed to Luca Marenzio, or a Church anthem
like one by Orlando Gibbons, or a chorus like one of
Handel's, or an organ fugue like one by Sebastian Bach.
It is to the want of this horizontal element of interest,
that the choral compositions of modern days sound so
insipid and so poor in comparison with those of older
date. Music, in parts, still nominally remains; and in-
deed, in instrumental music, we have more parts in a score
than ever were known before; but it is astonishing how
little real counterpoint there is in the majority of modern
compositions, the parts usually filling in the harmonies
with but little individuality of their own. "We have now
no longer a series of melodies for the different voices, but
usually only one for the soprano, the others taking the
ignoble position of forming only an accompaniment thereto.
The fashionable modern title, " part-song," expresses this :
compositions so called are merely melodies harmonized
vertically, and not combined horizontal and vertical music,
like the old many-voiced compositions.
Modern music waits in this respect its deliverer from
its present poverty of resource; and the composer of the
future who will restore the lost contrapuntal interest, in
connexion with the enlarged resources of modern harmony,
will make himself a great name.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 COUNTERPOINT. 289

Hauptmann was a great teacher as well as a great

admirer of good counterpoint, and he expressed himself
strongly on its modern neglect. The following extracts
from his Letters to Hauser are worth quoting:—
" The ancient polyphonic music was a combination of melodies
which were so contrived as to go together. The modern is merely
successions of chords divided among several parts ; the effects of
harmony, which in the former case arose out of the combination, are
in the latter the datum of the composition. And although the old
music was often defective in the harmony, the new is more so by
the repulsive and unnatural motion of the parts ; so that, judged
from the proper point of view for part-writing, much of the modern
music is more barbarous than the first contrapuntal attempts. In
the works, however, of the more advanced middle age, we may see
how the greatest of all musicians have succeeded in satisfying both
conditions, the interest of the parts and the resulting harmony, with
a perfection never approached in later times (I. 27).
" I have pointed out in a recent criticism, that the instruction in
what is called 'thorough bass' does not suffice for the writing of
counterpoint: it teaches nothing of the conduct of the parts (Stimm-
fuhrung). It is true that harmony is reckoned the most important
thirig in our music, but if harmony is to be worth anything, it ought
to arise out of the melodies of the separate parts ; and if any one
wishes to do this well, he must have gone through the whole history
of music from 1400 to 1800. It is natural that the wants of to-day
should have most claims on him, but if he has not narrow-minded
views, he ought first to go back farther and farther, and then retrace
his steps to a modern date, for only in this way will the music of
to-day acquire any living soul (I. 226).
[Speaking in praise of Mendelsshon's St. Paul]. " We see what a
difference there is between the choral music of all other modern
composers and these genuine Corales, woven out of melodies,
where every one willingly sings, because he has something to
sing (I. 261).
" The true meaning of harmony is, that it arises from a combina-
tion of melodies sounded simultaneously. This, which was the
most important thing in olden times, is now neglected. In good
modern writing, the bass is indeed given good relations to the
melody, but the middle parts are filled in with rubbish simply to
complete the chords. The lifted pedal will then bind the whole into
a compact mass, but any organisation in it is out of the question. I
have nothing to say against all this, but would rather have nothing
to do with it (I. 281).

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 290 THE STRUCTURE OF MUSIC.
" Palestrina's music has all its separate parts so beautiful, that one
would like to sing them all one's self. How many composers there
are who could not better employ their time than by writing out
music of this kind ! (I. 289.)
" Most people know nothing, and care nothing, of what true har-
mony means. By means of the clavier, through which all musical
education is now conducted, they get a certain feeling for compact
harmonies, but learn nothing of the consonance of melodies. Few
persons can write easily a four-part chorale as it ought to be, i.e.,
forming itself naturally and free out of four-voice parts, each uncon-
strained. Many a writer of great heaven-and-earth-storming sym-
phonies would be unable to do this, although, he probably would be
unaware of his own deficiency (II. 136).
" I certainly disagree with those who assert that counterpoint and
fugue are of no use. It is as in the modern schools, where Latin
and Greek are omitted, on the ground that they are not used in
after-life. Latin and Greek once learned may be forgotten, but the
scaffolding on which the learning has been built in the school remains
standing, though invisible, and gives a support to all knowledge; so
do counterpoint and fugue give to harmony a life, and a flexibility,
that make out of a compact mass a living and well-organised
entity. Perhaps a musician may have as little occasion to write
fugues as to speak Latin ; but his waltzes and songs will at once
betray what he knows of composition, and we should obtain light-
ness and facility, instead of that egoistical oppressiveness which
weighs us down like a huge alp in so much of our modern music"
(II. 205).

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press