[1] This article applies a modified species-counterpoint model, entitled species counterpoint with a moveable tenor, or SCAMET, to compare species counterpoint and (as it is so often called in the classroom). The aim of the model is to show how species counterpoint exercises might be compared with works of polyphonic music without a species cantus firmus. To my knowledge, this has not been undertaken in a systematic manner suitable for the modern classroom (although near the end of the article, I shall discuss some noteworthy instances in which the question has been raised). While something like SCAMET appears in the work of other scholars (notably Henry Martin's Counterpoint: A Species Approach Based on Schenker's Counterpoint [2005] and Peter Schubert's Modal Counterpoint, Renaissance Style [1999, 2008]) under the rubrics of mixed values, mixed or free nowhere is a comparison between species counterpoint and actual musical scores presented with the clarity of this model.[2] Species counterpoint is normally used as a vehicle for teaching basic voice leading in the form of contrapuntal exercises. The principal limitation forbidding its application to actual music lies in the cantus firmus part, a slow-moving melody against which counterpointed voice parts are placed in regulated measure (one counterpoint note against one cantus note, two counterpoint against one cantus note, etc.). While the slow moving cantus is excellent for teaching basic species counterpoint, a slow cantus-like melody confined to one voice part is a rarity in real music. This complicates comparison between actual musical scores and species-contrapuntal exercises.[3] The model described here remedies this problem. In lieu of a slow-moving cantus firmus or melody, it proposes a succession of individual notes of varying durations. These hard are not necessarily confined to one voice part, but instead can move between parts (for example, from the actual tenor voice for a whole note, to the altus for a half note, and then the bassus for a quarter, etc.). In essence, the hard note is the note of longest duration at any given moment, in any voice. Counterpointed voices are led against the hard note in corresponding duration (in the measure of the species as appropriate) and in any voice part. In applying SCAMET to real music, then, the student observes the voice-leading relationships of the moveable hard note to the in counterpointed voices as these might compare with a species-counterpoint exercise.[4] The voice-leading rules observed in this article are taken largely from Salzer and Schachter's esteemed Counterpoint in Composition (1969), and the rules therein for two-part species counterpoint: first species (pages 12-20), second species (39-46), third species (56-65), fourth species (78-86), and fifth species (101-106). I have drawn on this text in counterpoint classes, but any other clear articulation of species rules (such as Henry Martin's, noted above) could take the place of Salzer and Schachter's text. Regardless of text or particular rules, the SCAMET method is intended to complement an undergraduate course in species counterpoint. Advanced work along the lines of SCAMET but oriented toward analysis would require a more subtle and exhaustive framework of contrapuntal rules and guidelines along lines set forth, for example, by Peter Schubert (2008).[5] The aim of this article-to show how species counterpoint might compare with instances of real music-is framed by the desire to bring musical scores into the species-counterpoint classroom. To this end, I draw upon modern performance editions readily available to students (and where necessary note editorial decisions or characteristics of the original score notation that might have an effect upon SCAMET decisions). I apply the SCAMET model to excerpts of works taken from Lasso, Isaac, Ockeghem, Purcell, Gesualdo, J. …
Read full abstract