Counterpoint

[greg]

The emphasis on rhythm that is prevalent in all of modern music, from contemporary art music to pop, only serves to feed the animal part of us. It is all the same - primal, unable to convey the meaning, the peace, the appreciation of the better part of us that harmony brings. Indeed, today one listens to the "beats" that prevail across the country and everywhere in popular music, and it all blurs into one massive drone - powerful, but unintelligent, like the noise from a swarm of insects.

interesting comparison

Rhythm points to the most primal (& most basic) instincts in us, it represents the most animal in us, more "energy" & greater "passion".... while harmony is one of the greatest intellectual achievements of mankind. Harmony is the most sophisticated of the  musical elements. Rhythm and melody came naturally to man, but harmony gradually evolved from what was partly an intellectual conception - no doubt one of the most original conceptions of the human mind. Bach is indeed quite rhythmical, you do get the vital and joy giving motor rhythms, but for Bach rhythm was never the dominant aspect of the music. Harmony, to him, was God's gift to man.

now this part i agree with.....
it's so easy to just start drumming on a desk or table, it's natural. Maybe for some people who ain't got no rhythm, though 

but learning an instrument is not something everyone can do, and harmony is a lot more complex. I hate the word "sophisticated", though.

I sure you've heard the famous story about Bach's son, who was performing for his father and suddenly stopped a piece, leaving it hanging on the dominant chord (the chord that leads to a "home" tonic chord allows us to create a cadence in music), Bach slapped him, telling his son not to abuse any gift that God has given us.

i don't see what's wrong with that, if he felt stopping on the dominant sounded right to him.....
probably Bach himself thought it didn't sound right in that case, if he thought it did sound right he wouldn't have slapped him.

[bwv 1080]

The emphasis on rhythm that is prevalent in all of modern music, from contemporary art music to pop, only serves to feed the animal part of us. It is all the same - primal, unable to convey the meaning, the peace, the appreciation of the better part of us that harmony brings. Indeed, today one listens to the "beats" that prevail across the country and everywhere in popular music, and it all blurs into one massive drone - powerful, but unintelligent, like the noise from a swarm of insects.

This bothered me before, but now I will address it.  It is utter BS.  First off, you cannot compare Carter's rhythms with those in popular music - they are completely thought out structures that are unlike anything found in any popular medium.  If anything Bach is less "pure" than Carter in this regard, as he readily employs stylized dance rhythms in his music, even dances that were thought lavicious at the time like the sarabande.  Second the swipe at modern pop has racist undertones (not calling James a racist here) in that the rhythms in popular music all have their roots in Africa.  The sort of criticism that James is parroting in his ignorance was first voiced by white racists who objected to the "Africanization" of popular music.  Even country music is "Africanized" as it is a mix of the blues and traditional Scotch-Irish music.  Traditional African musics developed a rhythmic language of staggering depth, complexity and sophistication.  This culture came over to the Americas with the slave trade and found its way into the musical traditions of the various regions.  An emphasis on rhythm is by no means an indication of decadence or inferiority.  Hindustani music, which if anything has more ambitious spritual goals than anything in the Western Canon, places percussion and rhythmic complexity on an equal footing with melody (while completely avoiding harmony).  Are we to believe that it is therefore "primal, unable to convey the meaning, the peace, the appreciation of the better part of us "? What about Gregorian Chant or Organum?

[greg]

This bothered me before, but now I will address it.  It is utter BS.  First off, you cannot compare Carter's rhythms with those in popular music - they are completely thought out structures that are unlike anything found in any popular medium.  If anything Bach is less "pure" than Carter in this regard, as he readily employs stylized dance rhythms in his music, even dances that were thought lavicious at the time like the sarabande.  Second the swipe at modern pop has racist undertones (not calling James a racist here) in that the rhythms in popular music all have their roots in Africa.  The sort of criticism that James is parroting in his ignorance was first voiced by white racists who objected to the "Africanization" of popular music.  Even country music is "Africanized" as it is a mix of the blues and traditional Scotch-Irish music.  Traditional African musics developed a rhythmic language of staggering depth, complexity and sophistication.  This culture came over to the Americas with the slave trade and found its way into the musical traditions of the various regions.  An emphasis on rhythm is by no means an indication of decadence or inferiority.  Hindustani music, which if anything has more ambitious spritual goals than anything in the Western Canon, places percussion and rhythmic complexity on an equal footing with melody (while completely avoiding harmony).  Are we to believe that it is therefore "primal, unable to convey the meaning, the peace, the appreciation of the better part of us "? What about Gregorian Chant or Organum?

i think he means that the rhythm of popular music is a dumbing-down of the more sophisticated African rhythms (like the stuff Ligeti studied, which can be extremely complex). And yeah, Indian music sometimes has rhythmic modes and stuff, taking rhythm and sorta formalising it.

[bwv 1080]

i think he means that the rhythm of popular music is a dumbing-down of the more sophisticated African rhythms (like the stuff Ligeti studied, which can be extremely complex). And yeah, Indian music sometimes has rhythmic modes and stuff, taking rhythm and sorta formalising it.

No, he wrote: "The emphasis on rhythm that is prevalent in all of modern music, from contemporary art music to pop, only serves to feed the animal part of us"

[greg]

No, he wrote: "The emphasis on rhythm that is prevalent in all of modern music, from contemporary art music to pop, only serves to feed the animal part of us"

oooohhhhhh

lol, that's ridiculous. Bach's rhythm is WAY more comparable to a pop song than Carter's. Looks like I missed that part.

[greg]

So saying Carter uses more complex rhythms than Bach doesnt account for much at all.

what about the fact that he uses much more complex harmony?.....

[zamyrabyrd]

With regard to the original question, a good teacher said about counterpoint:
"The whole is more than the sum of the parts".

ZB

[Haffner]

his use of harmony does not even begin to approach Bach's depth & mastery. Not even close, in fact, no composer really does. We dont have the horizontal perspective he had...the horizontal approach is more sophisticated - and less intuitive generally (at least to us), this is one of the mysteries of Bach, we still, to this very day do not fully understand or comprehend the theory underpinning his use of counterpoint. We hear vertically now ... unless you grow up in a controlled environment and are taught species counterpoint etc then I don't see how anyone can internally hear & conceive music as Bach or his predecessors & contempories did. THAT is the mystery...

Aye.

[greg]

his use of harmony does not even begin to approach Bach's depth & mastery. Not even close, in fact, no composer really does. We dont have the horizontal perspective he had...the horizontal approach is more sophisticated - and less intuitive generally (at least to us), this is one of the mysteries of Bach, we still, to this very day do not fully understand or comprehend the theory underpinning his use of counterpoint. We hear vertically now ... unless you grow up in a controlled environment and are taught species counterpoint etc then I don't see how anyone can internally hear & conceive music as Bach or his predecessors & contempories did. THAT is the mystery...

he did do things that no one else did, in terms of counterpoint, stuff that's practically impossible to do.
But......
the two sentences make sense if you're referring to that, but if you're talking about his music in general, then the Bach-Carter comparison is more like an opinion. I like Bach better (actually, i like him a lot better), but obviously Carter is a master of harmony as well, just in a different way. If Bach tried to compose like Carter, he might not be as successful...... well, at least at first 

[greg]

...its more than an opinion its a universally regarded. no one approaches bach's perfection, depth and mastery of harmony and counterpoint. with JS we're talking about a level of harmonic insight & profundity which would render anything "wild" as a fairly tame experience thereafter ... it is the gateway of the most radical experience possible in all music. this is one of the reasons why he is so immensely revered. carters polyrhythmic contrasting narratives and formal schemes, like 2 pieces of music playing at the same time if you will, packed with incident etc...comes nowhere near the controlled organic flowing beauty Bach so often achieved...where certain methods were able to grow and be honed to perfection by him - it is much harder to speak in the unified, integrated voice of a totally consolidated musical form. Those wonderful musical means were then all used up, and cannot be redeemed by new composers. They have to find a fresh way ... note that I say FRESH ... not new ! In much contemporary music - with the 'novelty noise' factor. Musical fashion victims are often attracted to it, and we all know the BS factor is high. For many it is easier to find some resonance in what is so often "sound & fury signifying nothing". But this is usually just transient stuff - which of course has it's relevant place for we who are contemporary with it - but is not usually to be confused with the serious stuff....

uggggghhhh.... where to start?
well, i could make it simple. If you never liked Bach and you were a die-hard modernist fan, you never would've written this post.

[Ten thumbs]

Bach was an exceptional man and a musical genius - most people are not and therefore cannot understand his compositional processes. The tendency to extrapolate ourselves to the whole of humanity is however I believe a mistake. Other musical geniuses arise from time to time and I'm quite sure they can look at Bach's works and know what they are about. As an example I will cite the Mendelssohn siblings. They of course had the good sense not to copy Bach's methods. The fact that this ability is rare does not mean that it is non-existent. Perhaps Carter himself falls into this category.

[Haffner]

...its more than an opinion its a universally regarded. no one approaches bach's perfection, depth and mastery of harmony and counterpoint. with JS we're talking about a level of harmonic insight & profundity which would render anything "wild" as a fairly tame experience thereafter ... it is the gateway of the most radical experience possible in all music.

Yeah.

[Mozart]

So how hard do you need to focus to understand a fugue? I find myself getting a headache sometimes trying to follow whats going on!

[jochanaan]

You're probably focusing the wrong way, Mozart.  Just relax and let the music wash over you and in you; then you can gradually pick out individual voices.  Look for every appearance of the fugue subject and you can't go far wrong in understanding a fugue.

[Mozart]

Its funny because with Mozart, I never had this problem. The kyrie of the requiem looks complicated but its easy to follow. Well I actually have no idea how to read it, I just learned what note corresponds to what line on the staff but it still looks rather complex

[greg]

You're probably focusing the wrong way, Mozart.  Just relax and let the music wash over you and in you; then you can gradually pick out individual voices.  Look for every appearance of the fugue subject and you can't go far wrong in understanding a fugue.

yep, this is exactly how you should do it. Repeated listenings help a lot.

i think the reason a lot of people don't understand modern music is because they're focusing the wrong way, and it just confuses them. They're so used to hearing a straightforward melody, and when they can't hear one it's just confusing. I don't sit down and listen to Schoenberg's Piano Suite and try to identify the tone rows and try to hear themes and stuff, same thing with a Bach fugue. It's more about paying attention to different aspects of the music besides lines.

[Larry Rinkel]

So how hard do you need to focus to understand a fugue? I find myself getting a headache sometimes trying to follow whats going on!

No more or less than with any other form. The composer will make apparent to you what he wants you to hear.

[Mozart]

No more or less than with any other form. The composer will make apparent to you what he wants you to hear.

Not always, in Mozart, while the music is going, he is playing games on the side

[Ten thumbs]

Not always, in Mozart, while the music is going, he is playing games on the side

Indeed. Schumann took his games very seriously. Maybe that's what drove him mad!

[Larry Rinkel]

Not always, in Mozart, while the music is going, he is playing games on the side

Billiards?