COUNTERPOINT as a compositional technique is considered at the pinnacle of skills in western art music. Since Bach’s prolific contrapuntal output in the early eighteenth century, composers have sought to achieve technical perfection and stylistic transcendence in their works through displays of contrapuntal ability. While this revered perception of contrapuntal skill remains, a singular definition of the contrapuntal aesthetic does not. Counterpoint as a practice in contemporary classical music has undergone a deeply transformative process during the twentieth century, making historical comparisons difficult and challenging the venerated status of this musical craft.
While the twentieth century clearly demonstrates a diverse palette of compositional approaches to contrapuntal practice, it does not suggest that one (or some) of these approaches is dominant or that historical definitions of counterpoint hold any meaning in defining contemporary techniques. Modern composers have developed their interpretations of counterpoint to far surpass traditional views of the technique, so that lines of stylistic distinction between imitation, fugue, antiphonal writing and even canon become difficult to maintain.
Counterpoint is no longer only a technique, a compositional tool or an advanced cognitive game played and known to only the most highly-skilled composers; instead it is now a paradigm, a way of speaking in a language that yields a plethora of approaches (harmonic, melodic, textural and formal), a method of shaping and designing musical ideas with deep sonic and spatial possibilities, a way of three-dimensional thinking about the confluence of sound, music and time, and a vehicle by which expressive possibility for composers is demonstrably limitless.
This paper seeks to summarise the development of contrapuntal practice in the last century and suggest a contemporary definition of the nature of counterpoint and its many facets within the twentieth century literature.