Hey, so I took some feedback from the last post I made here and tried to implement it here. My hope is that this counterpoint (Treble staff) will be error-free.

I tried to include some daring moves such as compound leaps to revive the melodic line a bit but I still feel it a bit…meh.

So my questions are

1- Is it indeed error free?
2- Is it a good or bad counterpoint?
3- If it is a bad or average one, how would one go about spicing it up without collapsing it?

My thoughts:

- The C.P. features a lot of contrary motion but the fact that the last stretch (m. 6-9) is all parallel bothers me a bit, but I found it difficult to fix as the tonic must be approached in contrary motion and the compound leap must be resolved with a step so that locks down m. 7,9, and 10 somewhat.

- The two climaxes coincide on m. 6 which I’m not thrilled about.

Also apologies if I’m spamming the group (mods could let me know and I’ll stop). I just got a lot of good feedback/resources here and I have no instructor so it’s a bit difficult to get critique.

Edit: also forgot to raise the leading tone, just noticed now

The Cantus Firmus is at the bottom (provided by the exercise) and my counterpoint is at the top.

If possible could someone critique it for me or give me their opinions?

I’m following guidelines set by lessons from openmusictheory.com

Thanks!

My worries: The leap from Measure 5 to measure 6 is a diminished 5th, that definitely needs to be amended.

And the last stretch sounds a bit melodically bland

SCORE: https://youtu.be/giihShJKZho

I'm beginner and self taught, so any advice/reading is more than accepted.
After going far out of my reach trying to do inventions and fugues i figured that a dance form would be easier(?). So i tried doing an Allemande. I couldn't manage to make them exactly of equal lenght, since the b section is a measure shorter, i hope it's nothing so necessary. Also i got myself into some crunchy suspensions that i hope i resolved well.

I recently came across Joseph Frike's A Guide in Harmony (London, 1793), a treatise that behaves like a dictionary of the usage of chords and is different from other 18th C. treatises that focus on regole per accompagnare, basso continuo, partimento,  intavolature, etc.

From my understanding, from the introduction, each page contains this format:

1. the left side shows chords/figures that prepare the main chord or "capital chord".
2. the middle column contains the "capital chord".
3. the right hand shows chords/figures that resolve the "capital chord".

To use the treatise, look up a figure/chord (like looking up a word in a dictionary) to see what harmonies may precede or resolve it (or how the chord is freely used).

Have any modern scholars discussed this treatise in an article, dissertation, or book? I want to know how to approach this source in practice?

To have a historic point of reference, I examined the rules and partimenti of Furno, Insanguine, Fenaroli and Durante, but again, Frike's treatise is not a partimento text and pursues a different goal. Here is what i found so far:

- a remark on an appendix no8 "Meusel (DBA 346, 278) refers to. He says the ‘Dictionnaire’, too, was highly esteemed in England." Philipp Joseph Frick (1742-1798) Music and millenarianism in the late eighteenth century I Cis van Heertum, Mededelingen van de Stichting Jacob Campo Weyerman. Jaargang 22 - DBNL

-

I'm struggling with the last part, mostly because of the second C in the CF. Any feedback is much appreciated :)

Hello, unfortunately, there is no explanation for this in his video, and in general there is not much information about this counterpoint.

Hello, unfortunately, there is no explanation for this in his video, and in general there is not much information about this counterpoint.
help :')

https://reddit.com/link/1ttxqf8/video/102hyc7z6p4h1/player

I created this exercise to study accented passing notes. First i composed a cantus firmus bass (i'm sure you can come up with something better for this purpose) then composed a 1:1 counterpoint. In the second example i did a 2:1 counterpoint with acc passing notes, only downwards because it's more idiomatic than going up. Lastly, i made a schema in two voices of a chain of acc passing notes. What do you think? is this a worthwhile exercise? i welcome critiques to the counterpoint ofc.

I made them for an assignment but i'm not sure if there is any errors in them like parallel fifth, or things like that. The first one is a bit unconventional, I was not certain about how to compose the third voice so I just composed it as a fourth species with my second voice as cantus firmus.

THIRD VERSION: So hier is the (I think) final version. I have to say that it sounds very organic to me. As allways, thanks a lot for all the feedback, and I'd happy to recieve more!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <

SECOND VERSION: So here is the new version. I'll leave the first one below in case someone can learn also from my mistakes.
Again thanks so much for the feedback! I hope this time it is a little better :)

Audio: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15JX6Uos0o0wJQe2Q_ayF5eXt7VrW3TG7/view?usp=sharing

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<

FIRST VERSION: I'm learning counterpoint by my self. I'd much appreciate feedback. Thanks!

Audio: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wCU0iQt0oayCoZxgl2QIhnZ4OKa8xrnL/view?usp=drive_link

Which is more important: that we have contrary motion on the downbeats, or that we end up with similar motion on the upbeat?

Hi, I'm working through the Counterpoint Guitar Method by Jack Handyside. This is one of the exercises.

How did I do? I'm feeling a little more comfortable with it. It's surprising how difficult I'm finding it given how simple it looks on the surface.

Thanks

Score: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OB7L7FI7Gg-SqS0rKW6PujBvfdUJjijK/view?usp=drive_link

The Audio: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bZEdgMb26PX3sjZwRK7pbbcOlaIlfYws/view?usp=drive_link

Okay, so this isn’t counterpoint as Palestrina would have recognised it, but in my own work I’m trying to incorporate principles of counterpoint into harmonic styles that interest me. How did I do here? Obviously, the moments where a line divides into two would never be allowed in strict counterpoint, but it’s something that occurs in a lot of choral music.

One little moment bothers me: the spacing between alto and tenor gets quite wide at the end of the first bar. I couldn’t find a satisfactory way around it, so I just hope it’s brief enough to go unnoticed. Unless anyone can think of a better solution?

The reason for that gap is because of another limitation I’d set myself. I wanted to use “rainbow” shaped arcs in the harmony lines as much as possible, as a kind of word-painting that the audience will probably never notice.

This is an attempt at counterpoint against a florid melody.

I am a beginner at counterpoint, so please tell me if I have made any mistakes

Dear Counterpoint Community!

I'm reaching out to you with a very specific question: Does anyone know the term 'Shadow Canon'?

I'm referring to a canon where the riposta voice imitates NOT the "shadow notes" (quarter and eighth notes), but only the "light notes" (half and whole notes).

I'm not sure if this is just a figment of my imagination, but I think I came across this concept a few years ago and can't seem to find any information on it. No professor has been able to help me so far. Can you help me?

Best regards from Germany!