What's the difference between voice leading and counterpoint?

[IncarnateX]

parallel harmonization is included in the practice of counterpoint. And yes there is overlap.

No it is not included, why on earth do you think parallel movements are avoided when you learn the species? It is the opposite of parallel harmonisation though they both are present in modern music. Know thy species of counterpoint before writing about it.

[Dewdman42]

parallel movements are not entirely avoided. Parallel 5ths and octaves generally are. Perhaps you should study counterpoint.

[IncarnateX]

parallel harmonization is included in the practice of counterpoint. And yes there is overlap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_leading

Voice leading is the linear progression of melodic lines (voices) and their interaction with one another to create harmonies, according to the principles of common-practice harmony and counterpoint.

You know when an article says “and” it usually refers to two different things, in this case harmonization AND counterpoint, which suggest that they are not the same, which again confirms what the rest of the world thinks about it, including me,

[fmr]

parallel harmonization is included in the practice of counterpoint. And yes there is overlap.

No it is not included, why on earth do you think parallel movements are avoided when you learn the species? It is the opposite of parallel harmonisation though they both are present in modern music. Know thy species of counterpoint before writing about it.

Parallel movements are not avoided, where did you get that? When you are studying strict species with only two voices, you usually use contrary movement, but that would be impossible when dealing with four voice counterpoint. What you cannot do is parallel fifths and octaves, and that's simply because that would mean one voice would be like temporarily "missing". Parallel fourths, although not forbidden, should be avoided. But you can (and actually it's one of the "tricks") do parallel thirds and sixths.

Also, there is modal counterpoint and tonal counterpoint. In modal counterpoint, harmonization is not important (actually, you should avoid atractions). In tonalk counterpoint, besides the voice leading, you need to deal with the resulting harmony also. Bach harmonized chorales are a great source of study for tonal counterpoint.

[Dewdman42]

parallel harmonization is included in the practice of counterpoint. And yes there is overlap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_leading

Voice leading is the linear progression of melodic lines (voices) and their interaction with one another to create harmonies, according to the principles of common-practice harmony and counterpoint.

You know when and article writes “and” it usually refers to two different things, in this case harmonization AND counterpoint, which suggest that they are not the same, which again confirms what the rest of the world thinks about it, including me,

harmony is not voice leading. Harmony and counterpoint are definitely two things. voice leading is a product of them combined, using counterpoint to connect pre-determined harmony. Sorry IncarnateX, but you are the one that is confused here and I recommend more study for you.

There are different schools of thought about the specifics of both counterpoint and voice leading. Typical college text books will focus on Fux counterpoint and classical voice leading which observes most of the same voice leading rules as Fux counterpoint, but other more modern approaches have been introduced numerous times with variations... berklee has their own flavor of voice leading which resembles nothing like Fux counterpoint and there is nothing wrong with that, its just a different approach.

But at the end of the day, the study of counterpoint is about how indepdendent voices move in relation to each other, sometimes parallel, sometimes not. How tensions and resolutions are created between voices. Voice leading is about using counterpoint to connect desired harmony while maintaining a sense of voice independence.

[IncarnateX]

parallel movements are not entirely avoided. Parallel 5ths and octaves generally are. Perhaps you should study counterpoint.

Not entirely but enough to give each melody its own life:

Here is from the first species:

Use no unisons except at the beginning or end.
Avoid parallel fifths or octaves between any two parts; and avoid "hidden" parallel fifths or octaves: that is, movement by similar motion to a perfect fifth or octave, unless one part (sometimes restricted to the higher of the parts) moves by step.
Avoid moving in parallel fourths. (In practice Palestrina and others frequently allowed themselves such progressions, especially if they do not involve the lowest of the parts.)
Avoid moving in parallel thirds or sixths for very long.

So no movements in fifths, octaves, forths and limited thirds and sixths. And if you take the other species into consideration, you will see that all the rules are about avoiding the features of parallel harmonization as far as possible, which is no wonder if you want to give each voice its own life instead of letting it support a main melody. That makes sense, while you don’t.

[IncarnateX]

harmony is not voice leading.

I’ll be damned, you just gave a quote from the wiki saying it is

Voice leading is the linear progression of melodic lines (voices) and their interaction with one another to create harmonies, according to the principles of common-practice harmony and counterpoint.

So here we are again, voice leading implies both “common-practise harmony” AND “counterpoint”. Do not think you will be able to twist that one into the opposite to other than your own conviction.

I think I will just leave it to the audience to draw their own conclusion. As far as I concern, I have both studied it and I apply it to my own music. So twist and shout, makes no difference to me.

Here is a little test tune I made to explore my Fantom G where I use a lot of counterpoint and harmonization as well (chords). There is a bass figure as base and some introduced melodies, first rather naked and then they run together in counterpoint and harmony in the end of the tune. The first introduced theme (high synth strings) runs together with the arp lead and moogish lead and these are in principle counterpointed to the highest notes of the chord instruments as well.

https://soundcloud.com/incarnatex/terraformers

(Edited several time for typos and gramma but essence remains)

[Dewdman42]

Parallel movements are not avoided, where did you get that? When you are studying strict species with only two voices, you usually use contrary movement, but that would be impossible when dealing with four voice counterpoint. What you cannot do is parallel fifths and octaves, and that's simply because that would mean one voice would be like temporarily "missing". Parallel fourths, although not forbidden, should be avoided. But you can (and actually it's one of the "tricks") do parallel thirds and sixths.

great post. And by the way, you can't have two voices usually using contrary movement all the time, sooner or later they have to move in the same direction, actually pretty much just as often as in contrary motion. But as you noted, it has been shown that fifths and octaves in parallel tend to hide the voices, causing them to sound like a singular thing, which could be desirable and useful at at times!, but in terms of the actual study of counterpoint, and how to manipulate separate voices to interact with each other, then avoided.

[IncarnateX]

....

[IncarnateX]

Parallel movements are not avoided, where did you get that?

From the first species.

Use no unisons except at the beginning or end.
Avoid parallel fifths or octaves between any two parts; and avoid "hidden" parallel fifths or octaves: that is, movement by similar motion to a perfect fifth or octave, unless one part (sometimes restricted to the higher of the parts) moves by step.
Avoid moving in parallel fourths. (In practice Palestrina and others frequently allowed themselves such progressions, especially if they do not involve the lowest of the parts.)
Avoid moving in parallel thirds or sixths for very long.

So yes, parallel movements typical for parallel harmonization are avoided as much as possible when learning the species. Why else do you think that thirds or sixths have to be avoided for longer periods? Answer: To give each voice its own life.

When you are studying strict species with only two voices, you usually use contrary movement, but that would be impossible when dealing with four voice counterpoint.

That depends on the style and thus which rules of the species you are willing to compromise, e.g. if you allow yourself crossings with instruments with different timbres, forced movements in parallels can be avoided even with several voices.

Also, there is modal counterpoint and tonal counterpoint. In modal counterpoint, harmonization is not important (actually, you should avoid atractions). In tonalk counterpoint, besides the voice leading, you need to deal with the resulting harmony also.

Even tonal counterpoint is not the same as parallel harmonization in a strict sense. You still have to make the harmonies arise on basis of individual melodies but make greater efforts to see that they occasionally meet in progression of harmonies that could have been achieved by parallel harmonization but are not.

But one should note that the idea of learning strict counterpoint is actually to be able to do free counterpoint once you have grasped the principle of giving each voice individuality (which is quite the opposite of parallel harmonization where all voices usually support the main melody). In my own example posted above I break several rules of the species. There are even hidden minor seconds and not so hidden tritonus intervals in play, so in this case, counterpoint is “free” and not restricted by the rules of the species.

As I already said in my first post, the species are theoretical in nature, when applied it is no wonder that most of us intuitively do something in between parallel harmonization and counterpoint but that doesn’t make them the same thing with the same purpose from a purified theoretical stand.

[rbarata]

I can see there's no consensus about this...
I think the best is to practice and make my own opinion.

Thanks for your replies.

[IncarnateX]

I think the best is to practice and make my own opinion.

Can’t argue with that, rbarate. Godspeed to you

[fmr]

When you are studying strict species with only two voices, you usually use contrary movement, but that would be impossible when dealing with four voice counterpoint.

That depends on the style and thus which rules of the species you are willing to compromise, e.g. if you allow yourself crossings with instruments with different timbres, forced movements in parallels can be avoided even with several voices.

It doesn't. Just think for a minute. You have four voices. If voice 2 follows a movement contrary to voice 1, and voice 3 also follows a movement contrary to voice 1, voice 2 and 3 will be in parallel movement. OTOH, if you want voice 2 and 3 to be in contrary movement, one of them will be in parallel with voice 1. That's why, when studying strict counterpoint in species, you only have one voice doing the counterpoint. But that's just an academic exercise (for me, I relate that with playing scales on the keyboard).

Also, there is modal counterpoint and tonal counterpoint. In modal counterpoint, harmonization is not important (actually, you should avoid atractions). In tonal counterpoint, besides the voice leading, you need to deal with the resulting harmony also.

Even tonal counterpoint is not the same as parallel harmonization in a strict sense. You still have to make the harmonies arise on basis of individual melodies but make greater efforts to see that they occasionally meet in progression of harmonies that could have been achieved by parallel harmonization but are not.

It depends on what you mean when saying "parallel harmonization". Some Bach chorale harmonizations follow a strict "note against note" model, which we can consider as "parallel harmonization" - it's chord after chord. Yet, each voice usually "survives" if sung alone, which means good care was taken when writing them.

This is what actually "voice leading" means to me - tonal counterpoint, no matter if it's "note against note" or the voices move more freely against each other. What matters, in the end, is that each voice can survive on its own, and the whole still makes sense harmonically speaking. Chords appear as a consequence of the voice movement, but still they also make sense in terms of functional harmony, with functions and cadences perfectly defined.

Good examples of this (voice leading) are the second movement of Beethoven 7th or Wagner's Prelude to the I act of Lohengrin. But perhaps a best one is the famous Aria from the Suite #3 in D from Bach. The main melody (1st voice) is prominent in it, but each voice is a melody on its own.

[IncarnateX]

It doesn't. Just think for a minute. You have four voices. If voice 2 follows a movement contrary to voice 1, and voice 3 also follows a movement contrary to voice 1, voice 2 and 3 will be in parallel movement. OTOH, if you want voice 2 and 3 to be in contrary movement, one of them will be in parallel with voice 1. That's why, when studying strict counterpoint in species, you only have one voice doing the counterpoint. But that's just an academic exercise (for me, I relate that with playing scales on the keyboard).

I am sorry but this is as rubbish as when you claimed that parallel movement was not avoided in counter point or that it only concerned fifths or octaves, which showed that you do not even know the principles of the first species (like A in the alphabet). I do not which rules you refer to above^^^ but plz provide an example in which you show how the rules of the species force you to do parallel movements and I will show you how to do counterpoints by breaking some these rules and still avoid parallel movements, at least to a high extent.

Suit yourself and make your own judgement but I think you generally make it too complex when its spirit is simple. When I went to music school, composition class had two main purposes 1) Understanding of the principle of harmonization to support one melody, which was trained by strict chorale harmonization. 2) Understanding
the principles of giving each voice independent life, which was trained by exercises in the species of counterpoint where a cantus firmus actually can limit the scope of solutions to a few and sometimes one only.

Then we learned that most disciplines make use of both principles in various ways apart from a few purified variations and thus every style of applied counterpoint that you can mention is really a unique way of breaking the rules of the species; to follow some but compromise others. Nothing written here has convinced me otherwise.

You may use voice leading as a term for a special way of combining them or you may talk of voice leading in strict counterpoint versus voice leading parallel harmonization, however, in both cases, you have not changed the spirit of each of their purpose and no combination of them can logically be the definition of any of them.

Already from the first species where you avoid thirds, sixths, fourths, octaves and fifth as much as possible, the spirit of counterpoint versus parallel harmonization should be clear independently of whether they have shared moves too. However, they are theoretical ideals very suitable for training but not something meant to be followed strictly forever. The concept of free counterpoint is what really consolidate that it is a question of spirit and not rule, since free counterpoint is about doing whatever you want as long as you are able to distinguish the melodies to yourself and your audience to exactly that extent you want it. Today I would not care about how Bach defined his counterpoints and which rules he broke as long as I can break mine without someone telling me I had to do it like him or whoever to call it counterpoint.

[fmr]

Already from the first species where you avoid thirds, sixths, fourths, octaves and fifth as much as possible,

NO, it isn't. You have to avoid parallel fifths and octaves ALWAYS. You have to avoid parallel fourths, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. You SHOULD AVOID (but DON'T HAVE TO) too many parallel thirds and sixths (but you may use some). You put everything in the same bag, when clearly there are very important distinctions.

And these are the rules for the first species, which is the least important. You have slightly different rules for the second species, and again for the third species, and again for the fourth species (which is perhaps the most interesting, since it is about notes that usually start as dissonance and then resolve in the second half of the bar). The fifth species (florid counterpoint) is a combination of the first four species, and is where things reallyt start to make sense musically speaking.

But all this is done with just one voice. In music, you will most certainly use "florid counterpoint" in ALL voices simultaneously.

... since free counterpoint is about doing whatever you want as long as you are able to distinguish the melodies to yourself and your audience to exactly that extent you want it.

NO, IT ISN'T. That's why I gave examples of pieces where the counterpoint is clearly defined. It's not "anything goes". You may break some rules, here and there. but you can't break ALL rules ALL the time, or you will end up with something that's not counterpoint at all. Rules don't exist just to torture us, they came out of observation of centuries of practice, where composers determined what results best, and what not.

Today I would not care about how Bach defined his counterpoints and which rules he broke as long as I can break mine without someone telling me I had to do it like him or whoever to call it to counterpoint.

As I said, composing is not about breaking rules. Composing is about making music. During the process, you may pick up the tools that suit best your aim, and among them you may have counterpoint or not. But if you are picking counterpoint, and breaking rules just because it will make your life easier, you are not following a good path, IMO. You may break rules, but you should only do that if and when it is musically justified, not just because it is easier.

As I wrote already, the rule of avoiding parallel fifths and octaves exists because that sounds as if one of the voices is temporarily missing, and that should be avoided, for the sake fo the polyphonic balance. It didn't came up just because some evil mind thought it should exist to make things more difficult. And all the other rules always have a rational explanation for their existence, too.