Early

Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
journal-content.








JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact [email protected].

COUNTERPOINT REVOLUTIONIZED
By HERBERT

SANDERS

ask a theoretical student why he studies counterpoint

IFheyou
will
tell
he does so for examination

probably
you
purposes:
if you question him as to wherein lies the intrinsic value of
the study he will promptly tell you "it is invaluable as discipline."
Exempting candidates for diplomas and degrees from the counting,
it is safe to assert that but few study counterpoint for its own
sake and it is not wide of the mark to suggest that the number of
candidates for degrees would be considerably larger were it not
for the imposed tests in counterpoint. The chief objection to its
serious study is not its difficulty but its alleged uselessness.
Color is given to this belief by the fact that treatises on
counterpoint are contradictory in many important points so that
students are ignorant as to what authoritative counterpoint
really is, and, what is more annoying still, to find after years of
patient study of the tenets they evolved by comparison of conflicting theories that in actual composition many of its rules are
entirely disregarded.
The standard writers on the subject have helped to give
currency to these beliefs. In the preface to his "counterpoint"
Macfarren says:
Its study is of the utmost value, as giving to one who has musical
ideas facility in their expression. It is an exerciseof the musician'smind
as useful for developingthe power of thought and the ability to control
it as is any mechanical exercise for developing muscular strength and
other physical resources.

Prout says:
the value of the strict mental disciplineinvolved in work....
ing with limited resourcescannot be overestimated. One of the strongest
arguments in favor of this study is the fact that no composerhas ever
attained the highest eminencewithout first submitting himself to its restraints.
So much for the 'discipline' idea. Without labouring the
point it must suffice to add that nearly all modern writers believe the intrinsic value of strict counterpoint to lie in mental
discipline.
In regard to the relaxation of the rules of strict counterpoint
in actual composition Ouseley wrote: "The rules are never followed
in all their rigour in the works of the best composers." Mac338

Counterpoint Revolutionized

339

farren states: "The rules of Counterpoint were established prior

to the discovery of the natural principles whereon harmony, and
the phraseology that springs from it, are based." Sir A. Mackenzie says: "It is generally admitted that the study of counterpoint has been hampered by a good many rules which have absolutely no application at all in the extended domain of modern
music," et cetera. If, then, the highest appeal for the study of
strict counterpoint be that it is good 'discipline,' and if it be
authoritatively acknowledged that its restrictions are not of
practical application, why study it? Cannot such discipline be
obtained in some less irritating way?
Before answeringthe question it is necessary to define what
strict counterpointreally is. As a matter of fact there are three
distinct schools of strict counterpoint:
Cherubini,
(1) The OLD SCHOOL,Fux, Fetis, Albrechtberger,
Ouseley,Bridge,etc.
(2) The MACFARRENSCHOOL,Macfarren,Prout,Pearce,etc.
(3) The MODERN FREE SCHOOLas taught in Germany
and France.
Prof. Bridge says he regrets that modern authors are departing
in theory from the principlesand practice of the older contrapuntists, but he does not say why he prefersthe Old School.
The main tendency of the MacfarrenSchool is the restriction
of harmonic resource and the extension of melodic resource. In
the Modern Free School the restrictionsof the early theorists are
removed, with music, not rubbish, as the result. It will be rememberedby many that some years ago when a controversyas to
what really constituted strict counterpoint troubled the minds
of some English students they sent to Rheinbergerfor some specimens. On arriving in England these specimens were shown to a
prominent musician who exclaimed "Why, this isn't Counterpoint; it's music." In a lecture before the Royal College of
Organists,Kitson said:
We oftensee in examplesby menwhofollowthe old school,things
done whichare due to a want of time perspective. Little thingscreep
in that showat once that they are not sureof their ground. The abstractview of counterpointleadssometo see the evolutionof the art of
with the art of musicas a whole,in whichby
counterpoint,progressing
of the earlytheoristsareremovedand
degreesallthe crampingrestrictions
culminatingin the MUSIC,not the counterpointof Rheinberger.
Until we have one school instead of three, and until counterpoint is regarded as something more than an artificial and abstract study, it will be impossible to avoid controversy on the
matter. Nor must it be viewed entirely from the aesthetic stand-

340

The Musical Quarterly

point for it would then be regarded as artistic or inartistic according to the varying standard of taste of the individual or
period. For counterpoint to have the moral support of an unanimity of opinion and uniformity of practice it must be regarded
only secondarily from the abstract and aesthetic side and primarily
from the historic.
But if the historic counterpoint be taught, what period?
What composer or group of composers? To these questions there
is but one answer, no other has been suggested. Dickinson says
("Music in the Western Church"):
Melody as we know it is the peculiar endowment of the Italians,
and Palestrina, a typical son of Italy, crowned the Netherland science
with ethereal grace of movement which completed once for all the four
hundred year's striving of contrapuntal art, and made it stand forth
amongthe artistic creationsof the Middle Age perhapsthe most divinely
radiant of them all.
Sir Hubert Parry ("Style in Musical Art") writes:
Palestrina affords the most perfect examples of pure choral style.
In his work the development of many centuries is summed up; and
practically he stands alone in scope and artistic resourcefulness.
Here then in Palestrina we have the basis for a treatise on
counterpoint which will settle for all time the divergencies of contrapuntal theorists. But to be of exact value his practice must be
summarised and adapted to the modern scalic system-a procedure
to which no ultilitarian can reasonably object. The questions
touching the use of the harmonic or melodic scale and modulation
we need not discuss at this point.
As far as I am aware no modern writer has based his treatise
on counterpoint absolutely on Palestrina with the exception of
Dr. C. H. Kitson ("Art of Counterpoint," Oxford), and I may
state, that we have in this volume the study of counterpoint
revolutionized and its tenets based on a foundation strong as
Gibraltar. In short Dr. Kitson has given to the world a treatise
at once historical, logical, and practical. Let us briefly, led by
Dr. Kitson, consider a few of the restrictions and non-restrictions
of the later theorists in the light of Palestrina.
(a) Most theorists allow one chord in a bar. Those who
permit two chords in a bar look on it somewhat as a 'concession to
the weaker brethren'. Yet Palestrina freely uses two chords in
a bar. Kitson points out that the prohibition of two chords in
bar was due to the misconception that each whole-note represents
one chord whereas the contrapuntal principle is not that of writing

Counterpoint Revolutionized

341

two notes to one chordbut two notes to one NOTE. In combined

counterpoint the use of two chords in a bar is often an absolute
necessity if the harmony is to be smooth and the species is to
maintain its conjunct nature. One chord in a bar often makes
combined counterpoint an impossibility. (As a bar of scholastic
counterpoint represents two accents, a strong and weak, Palestrina's bars represent two bars of scholastic counterpoint). Dr.
Kitson is rightly severe on the MacfarrenSchool for encouraging
a wrong attitude of mind in allowing such a progressionas the
following to be consideredas one chord in a bar (i.e. the treble E
regardedas a passingnote) whereasthe MENTAL IMPRESSION
is strongly that of two chords:

II
II

VIIB

I
I

(b) Modern writersprohibit the use of the 6 chord.

As a matter of fact there is no more cause for complaint in
modern practice than in the ineffective use made of the i chord.
Professor Buck in his "UnfiguredHarmony" advises the student
to avoid the chord until he is accustomed to use 'edged tools.'
(Though how he will learn to use it by avoiding it I am unable to
comprehend). Harmony books are no help in the matter;. look at
Jadassohn for instance:
I

?
I-.
6
4

I. I

I o
6
4

6
4

Such a progressionas:
Mwc
a
Macfarrenwould regardas a common chord followedby its second
inversion. But Kitson points out that Palestrina could not possibly have regardedit in that light because the "Art of Counterpoint" belongs to a period before the term 'chord' was known.
He says:
Combinationswereframedaccordingto the principlesof consonance and dissonanceand the consonances
werethe 1st,3rd,5th,and8th,

The Musical Quarterly

342

and in three or more parts the perfect or augmented fourth and the
diminished5th may occur between the upperparts if each is concordent
with the bass or lowest part.
And in order to understand the principles of Historic Counterpoint it is essential that we form the habit of looking at it in this
contrapuntal light, though not exclusively so.
We are now in a position to consider the conditions under
which Palestrina used the 6 chord. Says Kitson:
A modern would analyse the following passage according to the
figuring:
AeternaChristi

7
5

6
4

5
3

The bass (c) is a point d'orgue (pedal point). In the tenor the 7th (B
flat) afterpreparationresolveson the concord(A). The fifth in the treble
moves with it, forminga sixth, the tenor being regardedas the real bass.
Again Palestrina uses what we call a 6 with the fourth prepared, the
rest being concordant requires no such preparation:
Palestrina. Kyrie-Iste Confessor

J -j

f- r "r r
-

No one, of course, blue pencils 4 resulting from the use of unessential

notes:

rJ

J J

?
I

?77

The followingtravesty of the truth would be amusingif it were not serious. A prominenttheorist, being told the 2 must not be used in strict
counterpoint,and not knowingthe real truth was that what was forbidden
was not what we term the 4, nor its mental effect, but the unprepared
fourth, arguedthus:c(a)

(b)

?r

rf

Counterpoint Revolutionized

343

(a) bad: mental effect of 4

(b) good, VIIb : V (key C).
In the music of the period both are technically correct. From an absolute
point of view (a) is far better than (b). Thus the student is being told to
avoid what is correct in the period, and also being told to choose instead
something that is infinitely inferior as music. A student trained on
historic principles will never in practical work use the six-fours and essential discords crudely because he has in this technique the origin of
all our rules for the treatment of six-fours and fundamental discords.
(c) Prepared discords-allowed
School.
The application of contrapuntal
of prepared discords:

by all but the Macfarren

will show the use

analysis

Missa Brevis

ib -

r r

r.

J 4r

on which our author comments:

It must be borne in mind that any classification of the vertical
chordsis entirely foreignto the horizontalsystem, and that no prepared
discord bears any relation to the essential harmony, that is, it demands
no considerationexcept that it move one step downwardinto consonance.
Ignoring the discordthe followingis the contrapuntalanalysis:

Fr

5
3

-.J

-m4J

r r

rF'F

6
3

6
3

J
r

(d) Eighth notes, dotted quarters, leap of 6th.

The varying opinion regarding the use of these are settled
by Palestrina. Quavers may be used on the 2nd and 4th quarter
note of a bar, but dignity alone forbids their use on both beats on
the same bar. To quote Kitson:
There are in Palestrina isolated
of the use of four eight
notes in succession. The rarity of suchexamples
a procedurejustifies its exclusion
from-the regulartechnique of the period-

'fr

rJ

GlOria,MissaPapaeMarcelli

oI

344

The Musical Quarterly

Dotted quarter-notes, involving the use of a single eighth-note

form no part of the technique of the period and are therefore wrong from
the historic- not absolute-point of view.
The dotted quarter note is generally used by students of
The avoidance of the interval
counterpoint to avoid a difficulty.
of a sixth in quarter notes, the melodic restrictions as to diminished
intervals, the leap of the third followed by a sixth and other controversial melodic questions can be solved by a study of Palestrina for, as Professor Wooldridge says:
The governing principle, technically speaking, of Palestrina's melody is of course that of conjunct movement; this, however, is beautifully
varied by the constantly changing value of the notes, and also by occasional disjunct intervals, which are permitted upon the condition of not
continuing in the direction of the leap, but immediately returning by
gradual motion towards the point of departure.
This rule may also, of course, be deduced from the methods of Palestrina's predecessors since 1450, but there is in his application of it a certain final elegance, representing the ideal in such matters, which have been
aimed at generally hitherto, but was now for the first time attained.
In this connection the words of Sir C. V. Stanford are worth
quoting:
..... teachers often overlook the natural tendency of a young
and inventive brain to chafe under advise which at the moment seems
merely formal, irksome and dry. The impatience of temperament cannot be curbed merely by dogmatic insistence on the rules themselves; it
can only be moulded and brought into line by the sympathetic method
of explaining why these rules were laid down and by clearly showing their
origin. In counterpoint, for instance, a beginner who is conversant with
the developments of modern music cannot be expected to understand a
rule which "forbids" a skip from
;
^h>-?Z

to

in a part which professes to be a melody written to fit another melody.

But when it is explained to him that this rule was made in the early
times for music written for the unaccompanied human voice, an instrument which possesses no mechanical means for hitting a note as the
piano has, and which finds great difficulty in producing diminished and
augmented intervals with accurate intonation, he will begin at once to
appreciate that such a rule is founded, not for the purpose of providing
materials for examination papers, but on the principles of common sense.

Counterpoint Revolutionized

345

There are certain progressionspossible which, while correct

accordingto moderntreatises and so frequentlyfound in students'
efforts should from the harmonicpoint of view be impossible:

How is it that 2 and 4 are unsatisfactory in effect? Simply, as

Dr. Kitson, points out, because the harmonic link between the
bars is ignored. Such crudities as:

are safeguarded by the following rule:

Whenevertwo parts move in parallel thirds or sixths by conjunct
degrees(the first combinationbeing essential and the second unessential),
they should proceedin parallelstill they reach essential harmony, unless
the bass be a pedal-

. -!
J,JX;

Ir.

It is obvious that rules which permit such inartistic progressions

in combined counterpoint as the following (quoted by Kitson)
require revolutionizing:
A

e[
?>1
-&A%
Ls Iw

JIj

J I
r i
OL

I I_

Macfarren

J II

Fux
WU, t m

I
l

79

The Musical Quarterly

346

By insisting on a smooth harmonic connection of consecutive

harmonies Dr. Kitson brings the theory and practice of combined
counterpoint into a position at once artistic, serviceable and
logical.
The following use of a dotted quarter note followed by an
eighth note J. ) J is against ancient theory and practise. It is
really a way of dodging the striking of a discord which is an effort
to avoid what Palestrina never did avoid.
Palestrina
Credo. Missa Brevis

In
a discord by conjunct and contrary motion we get the
striking
In sriin
and
adiscord by conjunct
contrary
origin of the appoggiatura-

orJ
?

motion we get the

Of these collisions,says Rockstro,the greatest of the masterstook

no notice whatever. Provided their florid parts moved well with the
bass, they cared nothingfor the crasheswhich took place between them.
Without taking undue license in this regard it will be readily seen
that its introduction makes musical counterpoint a possibility.
And surely the death knell of the barren and unfruitful counterpoint as generally understood is due to be rung! How can a
system which leads to such rubbish as the following:

dj^j

rn

^U-

r
t^tr
r
rf
trmrn\ " J
-1ij I I -I--.- _r 3j . J
?
r r_Jr a. r'-r,-<_3
..
J-J
J;---J
J
.LJ--J
j; '
^
"
^'c-r rF
-

justify its existence?

rIf

Counterpoint Revolutionized

347

But the fault does not invalidate the study of strict counterpoint-such results are due to the teaching of the many writers
on the subject who have grafted their own peculiar ideas on to
previous writers and their misconception so that we have strayed
far from the fountain head of what pure counterpoint is. But the
study of historic counterpoint as expounded by Kitson results in
music and not mechanical rubbish, it enables the student to preserve the characteristics of each species in melodic curve, it forms
the door through which modern harmony is reached, it shows the
student where to change his harmony and feel his rhythm, it rests
on the authority of practice and not on the caprice of theory,
moreover it does not end in a cul-de-sac for its principles can be extended in modern work and "the evolution of modern harmony from
them is as natural as the growth of a tree's foliage from its stem."
In conclusion I will give Dr. Kitson's idea of strict counterpoint in his own words (lecture before the Royal College of
Organists):
The principles of strict counterpoint rightly understood are not
arbitrary or meaningless: the fundamental principles of music remain
good for all time, and you cannot alter them, you cannot tinker them.
A system of counterpointwhich is based on a perversionof these principles must lead to disaster, a statement which I have had proved to me
time after time. Let me urge you then to an intelligent study of the
subject, read some meaning into it, and see in it all the fundamentals
uponwhichthe wholeschemeof the presentday is framedand amplified.So
you will findyour harmonyenlighteningyour counterpointand when you
come to study moderncompositionyou will have nothing to unlearn,but
you will find what resourceyou have at your disposalis not the result of
the entire rejectionof the principlesof strict counterpoint,but is merely
a logical extension of them. Your contrapuntalstudy will not only give
you the powerof combininggracefulmelodies,it will have formedin you
a foundation in harmonicresource,which, because it is true, lies at the
very root of all furtherprogress. The art of music as far as technique is
concernedis not the history of a series of experimentseach antagonistic
to the other: methods of diction may vary, but the sum total of resource
which is used for these ends is the result of an evolution which has its
foundationin the principleswhich have guided composerssince the birth
of combinedsound and which found their first culminationin the works
of Palestrina.
Dr. Kitson's further treatise, "Applied Strict Counterpoint,"
shows how the principles he has formulated lead to composition
in the strict style, that is, in the style of the Polyphonic Period.
Here the student has the goal of his strict contrapuntal study, and
he will see that it is not the meaningless rubbish he has conceived
it to be.