Card 34 / 118
II. Counterpoint and Galant Schemas
16th-Century Contrapuntal Style

### Core Idea

The 16th-century contrapuntal style is related—but not identical—to the principles outlined in species counterpoint. This chapter sets out some key principles and practice exercises especially for imitation.

### Explanation

The 16th-century contrapuntal style is related—but not identical—to the principles outlined in species counterpoint.

This chapter sets out some key principles and practice exercises especially for imitation.

The 16th-century contrapuntal style has historically enjoyed a prominent position in the teaching of music theory. "Pastiche" or "counterfactual" composition of 16th-century imitative choral polyphony (especially in the style of Palestrina) has frequently appeared in curricula and is sometimes conflated with the later, 18th-century notion of species counterpoint which we met in the previous chapters. This chapter sets out some rules of thumb to bear in mind when completing style-composition exercises based on this repertoire where you are given a partial score to complete. At the end, you'll find a couple of example exercises in this format.

Imitation

Imitation involves two or more parts entering separately with the same melody, or versions of the same melody. This is a common practice in 16th-century contrapuntal music, particularly for beginning whole movements and large sections in those movements (with the introduction of a new line of text, for instance). You might think of it as a precursor to the later fugue (which we'll return to in the High Baroque Fugal Exposition chapter).

Here is an example from Vicente Lusitano’s “Ave spes nostra” from the

Liber primus epigramatum)(click here for the source on IMSLP)).IMSLP has this numbered simply as No. “10”, but if consulting the source, note that the parts are numbered as follows in book order: Supranus 24 (“XXIIII”, name and numbering sic), Altus 26 (“XXVI”), Tenor 25 (XXV”), Bassus 23 (XXIII, sic even though the source index page says 22), and Quinta Pars 25 (XXV), remaining parts not applicable. The transcription is in modern notation, but preserves original pitch and note values.

Ave Spes Nostra by openmusictheory

In this opening passage, a “point of imitation” setting the text “Ave spes nostra” appears in all five voices. The imitation is exact, give or take small changes. The first voice to enter starts on F and descends to C, then it repeats the text a second time, now starting on C and descending to F with a similar melody, adding one more note at the end. Other parts imitate either this pattern (F–C then C–F) or this pair the other way round (C–F, then F–C).

The end of this example sees the start of a second imitative point setting the next line “Dei genitrix ... ”. This new figure has a “turn”-like shape: original note, note above, note below, original note (C-D-Bb-C). What follows is a sectnmio based on that second point. As is common in this style, the two phrase overlap (i.e., the new phrase begins before the end of the previous one) and the imitation for this second point is treated more freely than the first. You can even see a couple of subtle rhythmic changes to the first point in this last bar shown where this overlap takes place.

When completing an exercise involving imitation, let the existing material be your guide and consider the following guidelines:

Identify (potential) points of imitation: In any given part, look for changes of text (often preceded by a comma or rest), and particularly any repetition of text with the same music.

Pitch interval: The interval between imitative parts at the start of a section or movement is usually a perfect consonance. That said, others are eminently possible, especially later in the movement. Note that we are talking about the primary corresponding interval between the parts and not necessarily the very first pitch. We sometimes see examples of the tonal answer typical of the later high Baroque fugue, discussed in the next chapter.

Meter: Imitate at metrically comparable positions (strong beat → strong beat; weak beat → weak beat).

When working out what imitative relationships will work, try out all options in both directions. As the section governed by one imitative point often overlaps with the next, imitative entries around that section change may come from other point.

Make sure there is meaningful overlap between consecutively entering imitative parts. To achieve that, shorter points of imitation may require correspondingly shorter intervals between entering parts.

Consider how much of the point to imitate. Longer melodies eventually go from being a point to imitate exactly, to free counterpoint. Where does that change occur in this case?

Consider how closely to imitate the point. Try to preserve at least the rhythm and the distinctive intervals/contour/shape of the point’s opening.

Remember that phrases and sections can overlap, even at strong cadences.

Melody

Contrary motion predominates between parts (partly to maintain independence of lines). Avoid too much parallel writing even of permitted intervals (but note the exceptional case of the "fauxbourdon," which is an extended passage of parallel ^6_3 triads).

Conjunct motion predominates within parts.

Approach the final by step (in most parts).

Raise the leading note when approaching the final from below (in most modal contexts, though not Phrygian).

Melodic intervals:

Seconds, thirds, fourths, fifths, and octaves are all permitted;

The status of sixths is more complex. Rising minor sixths are used fairly freely (814 times in the Palestrina masses), rising major sixths are rarer (54 times), and descending sixths are extremely rare (7 descending minor, 1 single case of descending major).

Sevenths and tritones are avoided. Do not even outline these intervals with successive leaps or by the boundaries (high and

### Key Quote

This chapter sets out some rules of thumb to bear in mind when completing style-composition exercises based on this repertoire where you are given a partial score to complete.

### Application Scenarios

The 16th-century contrapuntal style has historically enjoyed a prominent position in the teaching of music theory. "Pastiche" or "counterfactual" composition of 16th-century imitative choral polyphony (especially in the style of Palestrina) has frequently appeared in curricula and is sometimes conflated with the later, 18th-century notion of species counterpoint which we met in the previous chapters. This chapter sets out some rules of thumb to bear in mind when completing style-composition exercises based on this repertoire where you are given a partial score to complete. At the end, you'll find a couple of example exercises in this format.

Here is an example from Vicente Lusitano’s “Ave spes nostra” from the

The end of this example sees the start of a second imitative point setting the next line “Dei genitrix ... ”. This new figure has a “turn”-like shape: original note, note above, note below, original note (C-D-Bb-C). What follows is a sectnmio based on that second point. As is common in this style, the two phrase overlap (i.e., the new phrase begins before the end of the previous one) and the imitation for this second point is treated more freely than the first. You can even see a couple of subtle rhythmic changes to the first point in this last bar shown where this overlap takes place.

When completing an exercise involving imitation, let the existing material be your guide and consider the following guidelines:

### Key Terminology

species counterpoint common practice counterpoint polyphony beginning imitation partial pitch note turn

### Related Links

High Baroque Fugal Exposition Liber primus epigramatum(click here for the source on IMSLP)Ave Spes Nostra openmusictheory the next chapter fourth-species counterpoint according to standard voice-leading IMSLP Citations: The Renaissance Imitation Mass Project (CRIM)
Source: https://viva.pressbooks.pub/openmusictheory/chapter/16th-century-contrapuntal-style/
中文翻译将在推送时生成