The Musical Times, 1.03.1899
A counterpoint controversy has recently been agitated the correspondence columns of a contemporary. The said question had its origin in a specimen working of a counterpoint exercise in „A Handbook of Examinations“, by Mr. E. A. Dicks. In order to obtain some fresh light on the subject from an authoritative source, we submitted the example to Professor Rheinberger, one of the greatest living authorities on counterpoint an whose organ works are so well known and esteemed on this country. Professor Rheinberger, in addition to commenting upon the exercise and giving his opinion on the Canto fermo, has very kindly sent three workings by himself, which will doubtless be perused with unusual interest. It is more than probable that certain champions of the „strict“ school will shake their heads at Professor Rheinberger's counterpoint, and not a few examiners and examinees will at once say that he would not pass the examination for the Associateship of the Royal College of Organists!
It is not now necessary to enquire whether this distinguished composer believes in two kinds of counterpoint - that of the so-called „strict“ or dry-as-dust character of the dark ages, or that of a more natural (and therefore less artificial) kind suited to present-day needs. It raises this very important question: Are young musicians to be made to wear the straight jacket of an archaic texture in regard to their contrapuntal studies? Is their natural growth to be stunted by such an old-world process? Is the word „progress“ absent from the contrapuntist's vocabulary? The following examples from the pen of Professor Rheinberger should go a long way towards eliciting a satisfactory answer to that question.
It may not be without interest to mention that a distinguished Doctor of Music on seeing the subjoined examples in manuscript, exclaimed: „This is not counterpoint (strict); it is music“!!
(Translation)
Dear Sir, -
The example of Counterpoint from Musical News which you have sent me is not badly done; but the melody of the upper part is lacking in charm and moves too monotonously. Moreover, the harmony of the third and fourth bars -
[1 Notenzeile]
cannot exactly be called good, because in both chords the same leading note (F#) predominates, in consequence of which the progression of the harmony halts: a minor triad instead of a chord of the sixth would have been better. In enclose three small and hurried workings by myself - two diatonic and one with modulations. It would have been preferable if the bass had been –
[1 Notenzeile]
because then the final bass note would have come on an accented (heavy) bar, as should be the case in a good and effective cadence.
With friendly greeting to my esteemed English fellowmusicians. - Yours, &c.,
Munich, Feb. 17, 1899.
Jos. Rheinberger.
(s. Notenbeilage S. 99)
______________