What's the difference between voice leading and counterpoint?

[IncarnateX]

The differences between Palestrina (Modal) and Bach (Tonal) Counterpoint are pointed almost in every Counterpoint book.
And have almost nothing to do with themselves.
Why don’t you have humility to study from Masters, to recognize you don’t know nothing about the subject and to stop talking when you don’t know a thing. You are grown man, aren’t you?

This is not a discussion about modal versus tonal counterpoint, which I have no problem distinguishing like I wrote about on the last page or somewhere, but the principle they share, namely to give each voice its own life. One with greater concern of resultning harmonies than the other but both sharing the ambitions of several individual voices. And both of them stand as such in opposition to parallel harmonisation where voices support one melody only. Another time you should read the thread before jumping into it blind with such bold statements that tells more about you than me.

[pabloaldunate]

They don’t stand against parallel harmonization. The stand for balance and voice independence. Have you heard about the Mozart’s parallel 5ths? Haydn has parallel 5ths on Symphony 94. Beethoven on Sonata 21. Wagner on Tannhauser.
They all studied Tonal Couterpoint, these are guidelines for preliminary exercises.
Why can’t you asume you are wrong? Be humble man, it’ll make you better at music.

[SJ_Digriz]

hmm... I followed this thread and it seems after Jancivil provided a general answer but this has devolved into academic semantics. And, to me counterpoint especially is a huge opportunity for musical appreciation. If the OP is a layperson trying to figure these things out, you probably ruined any interest in the topic.

So here is my attempt the main generalized difference that helped me. Especially since I started with guitar where voice leading is very different than it is for piano due to the location of inversions, even though the idea is the same. I finally got started with these concepts when I finally just dumbed it down. These two things overlap a lot, and can be applied to each other. But, to me they are distinct issues.

Counterpoint is approached from the melody point of view
Voice Leading is approached from the harmony point of view

Counterpoint tries to keep overlapping melodies intact and unique in relation to each other following various strategies, including the skill building concepts found in the species approach.

Voice Leading tries to keep the underlying chord progression transition as simple as possible so that the listener doesn't have to make mental leaps to "hear" the next chord. This allows the melody to dominate and still provide the tension/release/build/release type feeling that progressions provide.

Like so much of the academic world, there are endless tributaries you can run down that are great for discussion, disagreement, curiosity, ego and all the trappings that go along with ultra-precise definition. These two concepts are not immune. But, they are actually a lot easier to learn and apply without going to those extremes. But, at the same time it can be a lot of fun to do so.

I am far from a music academician, but I am able to use the concepts and hear their validity and utility. Keeping it simple stupid helped me get started. Hopefully, this is helpful and not so academically wrong that some folks on this thread won't die from apoplexy reading this.

[IncarnateX]

@Pabloaidunata: I am mystified. How can anything as musical logical that when you are training counterpoint, giving each voice its own life, you do not want it to sound like a parellel harmonization supporting one melody only in chord progressions be a mystery? Unbelieveable. If you really want to mess that one up with references to authorities, be my guest, but do not be surprised if someone says your work sounds like chorale harmonization to him and not counterpoint.

[fmr]

Counterpoint is approached from the melody point of view
Voice Leading is approached from the harmony point of view

Counterpoint tries to keep melodies intact and unique in relation to each other following various strategies, including the skill building concepts found in the species approach.

Voice Leading tries to keep the underlying chord progression transition as simple as possible so that the listener doesn't have to make mental leaps to "hear" the next chord. This allows the melody to dominate and still provide the tension/release/build/release type feeling that progressions provide.

Except that what you are calling "Voice Leading" is not more than tonal counterpoint, and has been done since Bach - listen to the examples I gave - from Bach through Beethoven to Wagner (and I could keep going up to Schoenberg, where there even wasn't tonal harmony anymore, but counterpoint was still present).

So, to simplify the discussion - voice leading is just a fancy name (like many others that people keep inventing) for something that exists for centuries, which is tonal counterpoint.

[SJ_Digriz]

Counterpoint is approached from the melody point of view
Voice Leading is approached from the harmony point of view

Counterpoint tries to keep melodies intact and unique in relation to each other following various strategies, including the skill building concepts found in the species approach.

Voice Leading tries to keep the underlying chord progression transition as simple as possible so that the listener doesn't have to make mental leaps to "hear" the next chord. This allows the melody to dominate and still provide the tension/release/build/release type feeling that progressions provide.

Except that what you are calling "Voice Leading" is not more than tonal counterpoint, and has been done since Bach - listen to the examples I gave - from Bach through Beethoven to Wagner (and I could keep going up to Schoenberg, where there even wasn't tonal harmony anymore, but counterpoint was still present).

So, to simplify the discussion - voice leading is just a fancy name (like many others that people keep inventing) to something that exists for centuries, which is tonal counterpoint.

I disagree on some of that. Although, I agree completely about your examples. To me the difference is your examples are applications of principles in composition. Not unique definitions of the tools. We are jumping down a rabbit hole that is unnecessary for someone just trying to grasp the difference. Voice Leading is MUCH more than tonal counterpoint. But, if you break it down it is a utility for harmony. Counterpoint is a utility for melody. You can use the two thought processes together, or separately for different purposes. And, you can achieve the goals of one by applying some of the concepts from the other. I do think though that the main purpose of each is based on a different approach to get to the same spot, which is let the melody speak.

EDIT: And most importantly, if someone is trying to understand these concepts you can't start at Wagner.

[Woodgardens]

I haven't read the thread, I must say.

But let's say you have a melody in C major. In the old days they would torture you to death if you would use the interval B-F or -even worse- F-B in your musical activities. At least, that's what they told me at school.

When a melody is followed by a second voice, the composers had to avoid these intervals. B-F becomes B-F# (NB G major) and F-B becomes F-Bb (NB F major).

So the counterpoint was borne and the composers became famous

[rbarata]

I must say, as the thread starter, that I stopped reading some posts ago. Unfortunately these discussions don't help as they just add more confusion to the subject.
Anyway, as I said before, better start practicing...

Thank you

[pabloaldunate]

@Pabloaidunata: I am mystified. How can anything as musical logical that when you are training counterpoint, giving each voice its own life, you do not want it to sound like a parellel harmonization supporting one melody only in chord progressions be a mystery? Unbelieveable. If you really want to mess that one up with references to authorities, be my guest, but do not be surprised if someone says your work sounds like chorale harmonization to him and not counterpoint.

What the H are you talking about?

Chorale harmonization as in First Species Counterpoint? Why chorale harmonization isn’t counterpoint? Because you aren’t humble enough to recognize what you don’t know.
The only reason I entered the discussion is because you are spreading misinformation on a public forum, if you were on the bus talking nonsense I wouldn’t care at all.
You ARE confused AND need to study a lot as all of us.

[fmr]

So, to simplify the discussion - voice leading is just a fancy name (like many others that people keep inventing) to something that exists for centuries, which is tonal counterpoint.

I disagree on some of that. Although, I agree completely about your examples. To me the difference is your examples are applications of principles in composition. Not unique definitions of the tools. We are jumping down a rabbit hole that is unnecessary for someone just trying to grasp the difference. Voice Leading is MUCH more than tonal counterpoint.

Much more as in what? What is the more in voice leading regarding what you have in tonal counterpoint?

But, if you break it down it is a utility for harmony. Counterpoint is a utility for melody.

You people seem to think that counterpoint stopped with Palestrina. It didn't. As I said, and showed through my examples, Bach DID counterpoint. Beethoven DID counterpoint. Wagner DID counterpoint (A LOT - as did Mahler. Actually, the works of these composers, and the way they wrote for orchestra, was highly contrapuntal). And the second Vienna School (Shoenberg, Berg and Webern) did use counterpoint a lot, as a base for their works, which was another counterpoint - atonal counterpoint.

And although Palestrina compositions may be considered modal, you already have notions of harmony present there, with cadences perfectly prepared and drawn, and chords defined. And, contrary to what you may think, tonal counterpoint is NOT (just) about melody. It is as much about melody as it is about harmony. Bach always thought his composition harmonically, and all the chords are perfectly positioned (sometimes, the chord progressions were so bold and complex that their contemporaries had difficulty in understanding and accept them, and even today they are subject of admiration). Once the harmony was established, he worked the voices to fit the harmonic progression, while keeping the different melodies flowing. That's why his compositions have been subject to study and praise for so long.

You can use the two thought processes together, or separately for different purposes. And, you can achieve the goals of one by applying some of the concepts from the other. I do think though that the main purpose of each is based on a different approach to get to the same spot, which is let the melody speak.

Since, to me, the supposed two processes are one and only, this is something you need to elaborate. What do you do "separately for different purposes"? What purposes? What one goals do you achieve by applying concepts from the other? Being that, if "the other" is what you called "voice leading" you have yet to define what it is, as it isn't counterpoint to you. As I said, to me it is tonal counterpoint, nothing else.

EDIT: And most importantly, if someone is trying to understand these concepts you can't start at Wagner.

Certainly not, I start with Fux, and I go through Bach. If they keep following through Bach (the chorales, fugues, etc.), from then on its a piece of cake.

[fmr]

I haven't read the thread, I must say.

But let's say you have a melody in C major. In the old days they would torture you to death if you would use the interval B-F or -even worse- F-B in your musical activities. At least, that's what they told me at school.

When a melody is followed by a second voice, the composers had to avoid these intervals. B-F becomes B-F# (NB G major) and F-B becomes F-Bb (NB F major).

Sorry to say, but either you missed a lot of classes, or you weren't paying attention.

[pabloaldunate]

So, to simplify the discussion - voice leading is just a fancy name (like many others that people keep inventing) for something that exists for centuries, which is tonal counterpoint.

Yep, First Species Counterpoint at 4 voices. Nevertheless academic textbooks on Harmony (Kostka,Piston) do talk about Voice Leading, but this is derived from Counterpoint.

[IncarnateX]

@Pabloaidunata: I am mystified. How can anything as musical logical that when you are training counterpoint, giving each voice its own life, you do not want it to sound like a parellel harmonization supporting one melody only in chord progressions be a mystery? Unbelieveable. If you really want to mess that one up with references to authorities, be my guest, but do not be surprised if someone says your work sounds like chorale harmonization to him and not counterpoint.

What the H are you talking about?

Chorale harmonization as in First Species Counterpoint? Why chorale harmonization isn’t counterpoint? Because you aren’t humble enough to recognize what you don’t know.
The only reason I entered the discussion is because you are spreading misinformation on a public forum, if you were on the bus talking nonsense I wouldn’t care at all.
You ARE confused AND need to study a lot as all of us.

What are YOU talking about? I do not conflate chorale harmonization and the first species of counterpoint but quite the opposite.
Why chorale harmonisation is not counterpoint is easy to grasp, simply one main melody against many. though we can agree that there are many styles of chorale harmonizations in between these ideals. What is your problem? You keep coming here with a lot of patronizing attitudes, telling i am wrong, confused and should be humble, which you are not yourself and claim this and that in oneliners with no particular arguments and now that I am misinforming people, all without argument. You know what that makes you, mr? Mute material. So thanks for dropping by, hope you enjoyed your pathetic self-promo at my cost and hope you one day will be able to use these authorities of you to say something that makes sense, because right now, you friggen don’t.

[pabloaldunate]

Aaah I don’t care about you at all dude. I’m just confirming with examples and bibliography that you are spreading wrong information.
You seem to take a lot of ideas out of your pocket, maybe you confused magician with musician.

[SJ_Digriz]

So, to simplify the discussion - voice leading is just a fancy name (like many others that people keep inventing) to something that exists for centuries, which is tonal counterpoint.

Much more as in what? What is the more in voice leading regarding what you have in tonal counterpoint?

Yes, I agree on this and the stuff you quoted after. However, you are going all academic when every noob guitar player gets taught Voice Leading BEFORE counterpoint. The first question is always "what is voice leading". The best answer that finally got it to click for me was we are trying to use chord progression to support a melody, and by following these rules it allows the melody to dominate. At the end, there may not be much distinction other than voice leading is a subset of counterpoint. But at the beginning you're asking for a lot of nuanced knowledge that the person may never get to or care about. Voice Leading from the perspective of a simplified chord approach in support of melody, is much easier to understand. Then we go to, what do I do if I have multiple melodies I want to weave? Well good question .. that's counterpoint. Which leads to various other musical structures that are all advanced types of counterpoint.

My objection isn't with your definition, it's about starting a noob discussion with nuance point #234502834.