i

Approaching Renaissance Music

Using Taneyev’s Theories of
Movable Counterpoint*

Denis Collins
Brisbane

I
t has become increasingly clear in recent years that a great
variety of complex contrapuntal operations exist in Renaissance repertoire. These
operations go far beyond the surface dimensions of the music and may not be read-
ily apparent without close scrutiny of available scores. Scholarly engagement with
the inner workings of Renaissance counterpoint has emerged over the last three
decades, with particular impetus from a landmark study by Joshua Rifkin in 1992
and continuing with contributions by John Milsom, Peter Schubert, and others.1
Rifkin coined the term “motivicity” to embrace the kinds of contrapuntal procedures
that lend extraordinary structural cohesion to the music of distinguished composers
such as Josquin or Willaert. Milsom has referred to the “combinative impulse” be-
hind Josquin’s thorough-going deployment of musical materials.2 These materials
interact with each other in ways that reveal highly sophisticated pre-compositional
planning. In his studies of modular counterpoint, Schubert has developed a critical
apparatus for analyzing recurrent combinative patterns in Renaissance polyphony.3
In a recent contribution to this area of research, Rifkin has further probed what he
calls Josquin’s “propensity for a tightly argued discourse built around symmetries

* Earlier versions of parts of this study were presented at the 20th Quinquennial Congress of the
International Musicological Society, Tokyo, March 2017, and at the 45th Annual Conference on
Medieval and Renaissance Music, Prague, July 2017. Support for the study was provided in part
by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project (grant number DP150102135).
1 Rifkin, “Motivik—Konstruktion—Humanismus.” Many ideas put forward here were further ex-
plored in other studies, beginning with Rifkin, “Miracles, Motivicity, and Mannerism.”
2 Milsom, “Josquin des Prez and the Combinative Impulse.” Milsom’s primary concern is with Re-
naissance fuga—the compositional technique of combining a motive with itself in di�erent ways
in two or more voices. The development of Milsom’s ideas and methodology can be traced in ear-
lier studies: Milsom, “‘Imitatio,’ ‘Intertextuality,’ and Early Music”; and Milsom, “Absorbing Las-
sus.” Other authors have been in�uenced by Milsom’s ideas about fuga; for instance, Grimshaw,
“Sixteenth-Century English fuga”; Grimshaw, “Compositional Phenomena.”
3 Schubert, “Hidden Forms.” Schubert’s method of modular analysis of Renaissance polyphony has
been taken up in other studies, for example, Cumming, “Composing Imitative Counterpoint”;
Schubert and Lessoil-Daelman, “What Modular Analysis Can Tell Us.”

Acta Musicologica 90, no. 2 (2018): 178–201. © 2018 International Musicological Society (IMS)

i
i

Approaching Renaissance Music Using Taneyev’s Theories of Movable Counterpoint 179

and systematic motivic development of �xed motives.”4 Rifkin argues that detailed
investigation of compositional tools can reveal the underpinnings of the composer’s
craft. This has obvious bene�ts for the study of Renaissance musical style more gen-
erally, but it can also assist navigation through thorny issues including attribution
or chronology of works. Such “forensic analysis”—to borrow another term used fre-
quently by Milsom—can help identify characteristic properties of any composer’s
use of counterpoint. This in turn can separate a work lacking in these properties
from other works imbued with them, no matter how similar in style the works may
appear to the listener, performer, or would-be analyst.5
What all of the studies mentioned above have in common is their focus on two-
part counterpoint as the gateway into models for critical investigation. This is not
surprising given that Renaissance compositional craft lays great emphasis on two-
part structural relationships, regardless of how many voices or parts may be present
in a composition.6 Music theorists of the time emphasized mastery of two-part coun-
terpoint as an essential component of a young musician’s preparation for profes-
sional life. However, contemporary sources are mostly silent on how exactly ad-
vanced contrapuntal techniques were used by a composer while preparing a motet,
Mass movement, or other work. This silence continued beyond the sixteenth cen-
tury to the extent that it may have adversely a�ected musicological approaches to
Renaissance music until the end of the twentieth and beginning of the current cen-

4 Rifkin, “Sound and Structure,” 656. At the outset of this study he refers more generally to “the ar-
ray of contrapuntal operations that I have referred to as ‘motivicity,’ and that John Milsom has
more recently subsumed under the notion of the ‘combinative impulse’” (ibid., 636). This passage
demonstrates a welcome reconciliation of some terminology used by di�erent scholars to describe
contrapuntal processes; however, the issue of an agreed-upon overall terminology and vocabulary
for analyzing Renaissance counterpoint remains a vexed issue as will be discussed below.
5 The various studies cited so far mostly arose from authors’ disparate interests in music theory
and musicology and perhaps rather less from a sense of a de�ned �eld of research on Renaissance
counterpoint. Although the present study refers primarily to the methodological approaches of
Rifkin, Milsom, and Schubert, I acknowledge the broad range of studies germane to an inves-
tigation of Renaissance contrapuntal processes, notwithstanding varying degrees of analytical
engagement with chosen repertoire across the scholarly literature. In many cases, there is fre-
quent overlap of topics; for instance, studies on improvisation may refer to imitative techniques
including canon, while studies of canonic techniques often draw upon the rich history of im-
provised practices. A representative sample of scholarship on improvised counterpoint includes
Jans, “Alle gegen Eine”; Froebe, “Satzmodelle des ‘Contrapunto alla mente’”; Canguilhem, Chanter
sur le livre à la Renaissance; Haymoz, “Discovering the Practice.” Recent studies of canon include
theoretical abstractions of compositional principles, such as Gauldin, “The Composition of Late
Renaissance Stretto Canons,” and Morris, “The Structure of First-Species Canon.” References to
improvised traditions are evident in Collins, “‘So You Want to Write a Canon?’”; Ott, Methoden der
Kanonkomposition.
6 The classic early study of this topic remains Crocker, “Discant, Counterpoint, and Harmony”;
reprinted in Crocker, Studies in Medieval Music Theory. An authoritative recent study that develops
ideas received from Crocker towards current methodologies in contrapuntal analysis is Cumming,
“From Two-Part Framework to Movable Module.”

i
i

180 Acta Musicologica

tury.7 Until recently, studies of this repertoire were generally content to highlight
melodic features and modal attributes, but gave scant attention to recurrent combi-
native patterns or how they relate to the overall structure of the music.8
The absence of an agreed-upon terminology and vocabulary to describe speci�c
procedural details that may be identi�ed in Renaissance repertoire is an issue in
need of urgent attention, notwithstanding progress in recent years.9 As noted above,
some scholars have developed their own sets of terms to describe imitative and non-
imitative combinations of voices in Renaissance musical textures, most notably Mil-
som on Renaissance fuga and Schubert on modular analysis, with other scholars
adopting their approaches to varying extents.10 Terms in current use often describe
very speci�c surface-level details, and perusal of the literature reveals instances of
di�erent terms used with reference to the same or very similar contrapuntal phe-
nomena.11 Beyond consideration of speci�c contrapuntal behaviors operating lo-
cally in Renaissance textures, there is a further need to establish an agreed-upon
vocabulary that could more generally and succinctly describe Renaissance contra-
puntal procedures overall. This vocabulary could thus situate a reader’s expecta-
tions without preparatory or lengthy descriptions of terms speci�c to an author’s
analytical orientation.
Bearing in mind these considerations, it is opportune to examine the contribu-
tions of an earlier scholar whose work has been overlooked in modern studies of
Renaissance counterpoint. The writings of Sergei Ivanovich Taneyev (1856–1915)
merit special attention not only because of their speci�c methodological framework
for addressing Renaissance counterpoint but also because of their clear terminolog-

7 See a discussion of this matter in Milsom, “Crecquillon, Clemens, and Four-Voice fuga,” 296. He
notes how “the would-be analyst of sixteenth-century fuga is left grasping for words when trying
to address the workings of fuga, whether in abstract terms or in the context of a speci�c work.”
8 See the lucid overview of preoccupations amongst writers on counterpoint over the twentieth
century in Schubert, “Hidden Forms,” 483–84.
9 A dedicated double session on analytical approaches to Renaissance counterpoint at the Annual
Conference on Medieval and Renaissance Music in 2015 brought together a number of scholars
intent on resolving outstanding issues pertaining to this aspect of research in the �eld. Unfortu-
nately, no follow-up publication or forum has pursued ideas generated at this event.
10 See appendix 2 (“Glossary of Terms”) in Milsom, “Crecquillon, Clemens, and Four-Voice fuga,”
343–45 for de�nitions of terms related to the technique of Renaissance fuga. A detailed catego-
rization of voice entry patterns in Palestrina’s music is presented throughout Schubert, “Hidden
Forms.”
11 In addition to the terms “motivicity” and “combinative impulse” mentioned above, the terms
“module,” “combination,” and “cell” appear to have overlapping meanings in that they refer to
short two-part combinations that are manipulated systematically according to the composer’s
pre-compositional planning. Of these terms, “module” is most clearly articulated in ibid., although
earlier appearances of this term in the literature may o�er di�erent shades of meaning; see, for in-
stance, Owens, “The Milan Partbooks,” 284. The term “combination” does not yet appear to be used
by scholars with a degree of speci�city in relation to how a composer may approach contrapuntal
materials, an issue to which I return shortly.

i
i

Approaching Renaissance Music Using Taneyev’s Theories of Movable Counterpoint 181

ical distinctions between a small number of key contrapuntal procedures operating

universally in Renaissance composition.12 Even though Taneyev was (and still is)
a very in�uential �gure in Russian music theory and pedagogy, he is almost com-
pletely unknown in Western scholarship.13 While a small number of studies provide
short introductions to Taneyev’s work, there has been no consideration—let alone
detailed application—of his theories in relation to Renaissance repertoire.14 In the
following paragraphs, I �rst provide a short overview of the principal features of
Taneyev’s theories, including his terminology for contrapuntal procedures. I will
then situate Taneyev’s theories against current scholarship on Renaissance coun-
terpoint. I will argue that analytical tools and vocabulary informed by Taneyev’s
theories can complement and build upon the insights and methods of contemporary
scholars and can help reveal aspects of the repertoire that may otherwise escape at-
tention. I will discuss several repertoire examples in support of this argument.

Movable Counterpoint: Vocabulary and Analysis

The monumental Movable Counterpoint in the Strict Style, published in 1909, repre-
sented the culmination of Taneyev’s career as professor of counterpoint and compo-
sition at the Moscow Conservatoire and his many years of research into Renaissance
contrapuntal procedures, especially in the music of Palestrina. In this book, Taneyev
attempted an all-embracing theory for describing certain types of contrapuntal
procedures that he grouped collectively under the term “movable counterpoint.”15

12 Taneyev, Podvizhnoy kontrapunkt. Translated in Brower, Serge Ivanovitch Taneiev. Other variants
of the name include Taneev and Tane’ev. A more recent English translation and commentary on
Taneyev’s theories of canon is available in Grove, “Sergei Ivanovich Taneev’s Doctrine.”
13 For an overview of Taneyev’s life and works but with little on his theoretical writings, see Brown,
“Taneyev, Sergey Ivanovich.” An investigation into contexts behind the poor reception of his work
is in Desbruslais, “The Western Reception.” Of note are Desbruslais’s comments on the hostile
review of Taneyev’s book by the in�uential mid-twentieth-century musicologist Gerald Abraham,
in Abraham, “Review of Convertible Counterpoint.” A useful listing of early literature on Taneyev,
including items in Russian, is in Damschroder and Williams, Music Theory, 345–47.
14 For introductory overviews of Taneyev’s theory of movable counterpoint, see Carpenter, “The
Contributions of Taneev,” esp. 253–73; Parker, “Direct Shifting and Mixed Shifting”; Wehrmeyer,
“Sergej Ivanovič Taneevs Theorie”; Segall, “Sergei Taneev’s Vertical-Shifting Counterpoint”;
Collins, “Taneyev’s Theories.” Taneyev’s name is rarely mentioned in studies of Renaissance mu-
sic, usually only in passing, as in Ott, Methoden der Kanonkomposition, 4, 142, and 146 (note 178).
15 The term “movable counterpoint” has been adopted by the small number of English-speaking
scholars who have engaged with Taneyev’s work. This is in contrast to the odd choice of “con-
vertible counterpoint” in the title of the only English translation of his book. Brower’s transla-
tion is plagued by inaccuracies and infelicities of expression, commented upon in the studies by
Segall, “Sergei Taneev’s Vertical-Shifting Counterpoint,” Desbruslais, “The Western Reception,”
and Collins, “Taneyev’s Theories.” To my knowledge, no new translation of Taneyev’s book is
imminent. In this study, I use the term “movable counterpoint” even when page references are to
Brower’s translation.

i
i

182 Acta Musicologica

More speci�cally, “movable counterpoint” was Taneyev’s general term for how a
two-part combination of melodic and rhythmic material may be transformed to yield
one or more derivative combinations based on the same material. Combinations are
generally short, lasting no more than three or four measures in modern transcrip-
tions of Renaissance repertoire. Movable counterpoint comprises two overall cat-
egories: vertical-shifting counterpoint, which may be further classi�ed as inverse-
or direct-shifting counterpoint, and horizontal-shifting counterpoint. Each of these
two categories involves a two-part combination of materials, called an original com-
bination, that yields at least one other combination, called the derivative combina-
tion.16 Taneyev’s terms are listed in table 1.

Taneyev’s term Taneyev’s meaning Equivalent term elsewhere

Movable When an original combination can None
Counterpoint yield at least one derivative combi-
nation. Combinations are usually for
two parts, although three-part origi-
nal and derivative combinations are
considered later in Taneyev’s book.
Vertical-Shifting When the parts of a two-part com- Invertible Counterpoint
Counterpoint bination are moved vertically up or Double Counterpoint
down in relation to each other
Inverse Vertical-Shifting When the vertical shift up or down Invertible Counterpoint
Counterpoint results in registral exchange of parts Double Counterpoint
Direct Vertical-Shifting When the vertical shift up or down None
Counterpoint results in the same registral relation-
ship between the parts (i.e., no ex-
change of relative position)
Horizontal-Shifting When the temporal o�set between None
Counterpoint parts is changed so that the parts be-
come closer together or farther away
Double-Shifting When both vertical- and horizontal- None
Counterpoint shifting counterpoint are applied to
an original combination

Table 1. Taneyev’s terms and their equivalents elsewhere.

In two-part vertical-shifting counterpoint, one or both voices are transposed up or

down by a predetermined interval. An inverse shift occurs when voices exchange
their relative positions above or below each other in the derivative combination.

16 In later sections of his book, Taneyev expanded his discussion to include three-part original and
derivative combinations. The term “combination” is used in Brower’s English translation and will
be retained in the present study. This term o�ers a reasonably precise indication of the situation in
which the melodic and rhythmic materials of two voices are presented together in a short passage
in modern transcription of Renaissance repertoire. The same or di�erent melodic and rhythmic
material may be presented in each voice, although Taneyev focused principally on examples with
di�erent content in each voice.

i
i

Approaching Renaissance Music Using Taneyev’s Theories of Movable Counterpoint 183

This corresponds to the English terms “invertible counterpoint” and “double coun-
terpoint” (used interchangeably), although Taneyev’s treatment goes far beyond the
limited number of cases at the octave, tenth, or twelfth considered in discussions of
this topic by other authors. A direct shift occurs when the relative positions of the
voices are maintained in the derivative combination. This procedure lacks any sys-
tematic study in Western counterpoint texts and represents one of Taneyev’s most
original contributions to contrapuntal theory. There is no corresponding term in
English for this procedure.
Horizontal-shifting counterpoint involves taking one of the two voices of an
original combination and changing its temporal o�set with respect to the other
voice. The a�ected voice, therefore, may begin after a longer or shorter time dis-
tance in relation to the other voice. In some cases, the voices may switch their rela-
tive order of entries so that the �rst voice of the original combination becomes the
second voice of the derivative combination, and vice versa.
Taneyev gave considerable attention to situations where vertical- and horizontal-
shifting counterpoint may both be applied to the same original combination, a
process he called “double-shifting counterpoint.” In these situations, the original
and derivative combinations must obey rules for constructing both vertical- and
horizontal-shifting counterpoint.
Figure 1 includes Taneyev’s nomenclature for annotating musical examples.17
This arises from his algebraic formulation of the speci�c rules that should be ob-
served when the student of counterpoint attempts to write a pastiche exercise in
movable counterpoint. Figure 1a presents an original combination and its derivative
combination; the upper voice is labeled I and the lower voice II. Intervallic motion
is labeled using cardinal numbers: 0 for unison, 1 for second, 2 for third, etc. If the
upper voice ascends then it is designated as a positive interval (e.g., 2 indicates an
ascending third); if it descends then it is given a negative number (e.g., -3 for de-
scending fourth). The opposite applies to the lower voice; for example, 5 indicates a
descending sixth in this voice, while -7 refers to an ascending octave.
Consider �gure 1a: Taneyev speci�ed that the formula for the original combina-
tion is I + II, where the capital Roman letters indicate the higher and lower voices
respectively. In vertical-shifting counterpoint, the letter “v” is added as a superscript
to each Roman numeral to indicate the size of the vertical shift for each voice be-
tween the original and derivative combinations. In order to discover what kind of
vertical-shifting counterpoint is operating in a two-part musical example, Taneyev
calculated an index, represented by the letters “Jv,” which takes as its values the sizes
of the shifts for each voice. In other words, the index of vertical-shifting counter-
point for the derivative combination is calculated by summing together the intervals
by which each voice is transposed (or shifted) up or down. In �gure 1a, voice I moves

17 The following summary of basic features of movable counterpoint draws upon accounts found in
the studies cited above by Segall, Carpenter, and Collins.

i
i

184 Acta Musicologica

Figure 1a. Taneyev, Vertical-shi�ing counterpoint at the octave (Brower 1962, 50).

Figure 1b. Taneyev, Horizontal-shi�ing counterpoint (Brower 1962, 224).

down a second (Iv = -1) and voice II moves up a seventh (IIv = -6). The result is Jv = -7,
the index for inverse vertical-shifting counterpoint at the octave. The negative sign
placed before the number seven here indicates registral exchange of voices in this
musical example. As we will see in further examples below, a positive sign for the in-
dex indicates direct-shifting counterpoint, that is, the voices may move up or down
relative to each other but without exchanging registral positions.
In similar fashion, the index of horizontal-shifting counterpoint demonstrates
how a motive can work against itself at di�erent temporal o�sets (indicated by the
index Jh). If the �rst voice (labeled I) moves farther away from the second voice (II),
then it takes a positive sign. If voice I moves closer to voice II then it takes a nega-
tive sign. Likewise, for voice II: if it moves farther away from voice I, then it takes
a positive sign; if it moves closer then it takes a negative sign. See �gure 1b, where
voice II moves by one measure to the right (IIh = 1), thereby increasing the tempo-
ral o�set from one to two breves between the voices. Voice I is not shifted (Ih = 0).
Taneyev calculated horizontal distances using one measure in modern transcription
as the unit of shifting (part measures receive fractional numbers). This example also
involves transposing both voices upwards by an octave (Iv = 7 and IIv = -7), result-
ing in a direct shift because the relative positions between voices are not changed
(Jv = 0). In this example, both vertical- and horizontal-shifting counterpoint are ap-
plied to an original combination (with two levels of superscripts applied to voices I
and II); therefore, the term “double-shifting counterpoint” may be used to describe
the contrapuntal operations overall.
In this study, I do not intend to provide further detailed explanation of Taneyev’s
rules for calculating indices for original and derivative combinations, although I ac-

i
i

Approaching Renaissance Music Using Taneyev’s Theories of Movable Counterpoint 185

knowledge the importance of this aspect of his work.18 My attention is directed

instead to how Taneyev’s categorization of di�erent types of counterpoint within
one overall theory may be useful in current research. My focus arises in large part
because, as noted above, a signi�cant problem facing researchers is the lack of an
agreed-upon vocabulary, historical or modern, to describe the di�erent kinds of ma-
nipulations or combinations of thematic material in repertoire. To probe this issue,
it is worthwhile to turn attention to instances in the literature where complex con-
trapuntal combinations are described and to o�er further analytic insights based on
an approach informed by Taneyev’s theories.

Movable Counterpoint in Selected Chansons by Josquin Des Prez

To begin, I consider examples by Josquin, a composer renowned for his concise and
meticulously worked-out applications of counterpoint. Much of the current schol-
arship on Renaissance counterpoint focuses on him. In his recent study mentioned
above, for instance, Rifkin commented speci�cally upon two closely related pas-
sages from Josquin’s �ve-part chanson Incessament livré suis a martire, measures 27
to 33 and 38 to 43 (see �gure 2).19 Both passages comprise two phrases, each of
which is repeated exactly in the Superius but subtly altered in the other voices. The
Tenor’s material in measures 27 to 29 forms a two-part combination (or module as
Rifkin called it) against the melody in the Superius,20 but, as Rifkin observed, the
repetition occurs a �fth lower in the Quintus in measures 30 to 32. Taneyev would
have considered this an instance of vertical-shifting counterpoint, more speci�cally,
direct-shifting counterpoint, because one of the voices is transposed but without
registral exchange resulting between the voices. In other words, the original combi-
nation of Superius and Tenor formed at measures 27 to 29 is direct-shifted by a �fth
(Jv = 4) to yield the derivative combination of Superius and Quintus at measures 30
to 32. Moreover, Josquin employs direct-shifting counterpoint here in the context of
a canon at the �fth between Tenor and Quintus, the primary structural element in
this work. However, as Rifkin notes about the example, the canon “remains barely
perceptible to the ear, and [is] certainly subordinate to the Superius.”21

18 Much of Taneyev’s book is taken up with very detailed instructions on intervallic progressions and
dissonance treatment for each index of movable counterpoint from the second to �fteenth. These
instructions were aimed at students preparing to write pastiche exercises in movable counterpoint;
however, Taneyev included many examples from Renaissance repertoire as well as examples of his
own devising to illustrate how di�erent indices of movable counterpoint operated.
19 Rifkin, “Sound and Structure,” 637–38. For a modern edition of Incessament livré, see Macey, Secu-
lar Works for Five Voices, 19–22. An online edition is also available at the Josquin Research Project:
http://josquin.stanford.edu/work/?id=Jos2908 (accessed October 3, 2018).
20 In this and following �gures, square brackets above a sta� indicate the melodic material involved
in a combination.
21 Ibid., 638.

i
i

186 Acta Musicologica

Figure 2. Josquin, Incessament livré suis a martire, mm. 27–46.

Rifkin also noted how the Contratenor material in measures 28 to 29 is expanded

in the Bassus in measures 30 to 32 but repeated a third below.22 We may therefore
think in terms of a three-part original combination overall in measures 28 to 30 that
yields a three-part derivative combination in measures 30 to 32. The entire process
is repeated in measures 38 to 43, perhaps re�ecting Josquin’s satisfaction at crafting
such a subtle demonstration of three-part shifting counterpoint that works twice
in the context of a two-part canonic structure.23 For present purposes, we can sim-

22 Ibid.
23 In e�ect, there are three two-part combinations operating in measures 28 to 30, which are manip-
ulated by Josquin in direct-shifting counterpoint to arrive at the three derivative two-part com-
binations in measures 30 to 32. In the later sections of his book, Taneyev describes in detail how
mathematically to derive an overall index of three-part vertical-shifting counterpoint. This in-

i
i

Approaching Renaissance Music Using Taneyev’s Theories of Movable Counterpoint 187

ply note that Josquin successfully presented two combinations of melodies in lower
voices against the �xed-pitch repetition of the upper voice (Superius) by means of
a contrapuntal technique that Taneyev labeled as direct-shifting counterpoint.
The next examples are also drawn from Josquin’s �ve-part canonic chansons.
Plusieurs regretz and Douleur me bat share several features that suggest self-
quotation on the part of Josquin.24 Milsom has argued that the contrapuntal so-
phistication of Plusieurs regretz supports reasonably �rm attribution of this work to
Josquin.25 Milsom also draws attention to what he calls the combinative impulse in
both chansons. For instance, the opening of Douleur me bat comprises three state-
ments of the same motivic material, �rst heard in the Superius and Contratenor,
followed by the Bassus and Superius, and then in the Contratenor, Tenor, and Bas-
sus. Milsom uses the term “interlock” to describe these three statements. In �gure 3,
I follow Milsom in labeling the motivic material as comprising motives X and Y. In
the �rst interlock, motive X in the Superius enters a semibreve after motive Y in
the Contratenor; in the second interlock (mm. 3–6) motive X is transposed down an
octave to the Bassus and begins before motive Y in the Superius. The third inter-
lock (mm. 5–8) involves motive X in the Tenor sandwiched between statements of
motive Y that begin before and after it in the Contratenor and Bassus respectively.
The term “interlock” is a useful descriptor for combinations of voices at dif-
ferent intervals of imitation or di�erent temporal o�sets between voices. It shares
some features but not the precision of Taneyev’s concepts of vertical-shifting and
horizontal-shifting combinations. However, considering �gure 3 in more detail us-
ing Taneyev’s nomenclature leads to additional observations. First, the registral
exchange of motives X and Y between the �rst and second interlocks (or combi-
nations) involves vertical-shifting counterpoint at the eleventh, an interval rarely
discussed by authors apart from Taneyev.26 Second, the order of entries of mo-
tives X and Y is reversed between the �rst and second interlocks, indicating the
application of horizontal-shifting counterpoint. That this occurs at the same time
as vertical-shifting counterpoint results in what Taneyev called double-shifting
counterpoint.

volves summing together the indices for all of the di�erent pairs leading to the overall index.
Thus, the index for the upper two voices (Jv = 4) plus the index for the lower twoq
voices (Jv = -2)
equals the index for the outer two voice (Jv = 2), which result is expressed as Jv = 2. For full
details of these procedures, see Brower, Serge Ivanovitch Taneiev, 157–63.
24 For modern editions of Douleur me bat and Plusieurs regretz see Macey, Secular Works for
Five Voices, 5–8 and 51–55 respectively. Online editions of each work are available at: http://
josquin.stanford.edu/work/?id=Jos2904 and http://josquin.stanford.edu/work/?id=Jos2921 respec-
tively (accessed October 3, 2018).
25 Milsom, “Josquin and the Act of Self-Quotation.”
26 Motive X moves down an octave from Superius to Bassus, while motive Y moves up a fourth from
Contratenor to Superius. Using Taneyev’s formula, the Superius to Bassus motion gives v = -7
and Contratenor to Superius gives v = -3. Summing these together gives Jv = -10, the index for
inverse-shifting counterpoint at the eleventh.

i
i

188 Acta Musicologica

Figure 3. Josquin, Douleur me bat, mm. 1–8.

Before discussing �gure 3 further, it is useful to look in more detail at Taneyev’s prin-
ciples of horizontal-shifting counterpoint. Figures 4a and 4b, taken from Taneyev’s
introductory discussion of this topic, show how two motives may be combined to-
gether at di�erent temporal o�sets.27 Taneyev proposed that both versions could
arise from what he calls a three-part “basic version.” To write a basic version,
Taneyev speci�es two motives, one of which is treated in strict imitation, leading
to di�erent temporal relationships with the other motive. This means that the ba-
sic version comprises two two-part combinations and one three-part combination.
Taneyev further observed that the order of distribution of the combinations dur-
ing the course of the composition is entirely of the composer’s choosing.28 In �g-
ure 4c, he labels the canonic voices as “P” for “Proposta” (leading part) and “R” for
“Risposta” (following part). The other motive is labeled “Cp” for “Counterpoint.”
Returning to �gure 3, Josquin’s use of a procedure akin to a three-part basic
version is suggested in measures 5 to 7 where motive X combines with two pre-
sentations of motive Y. Further, motives X and Y combine in the Contratenor and
Tenor at measures 5 to 7 in a way that recalls the Superius–Contratenor combina-
tion beginning in measure 1, but this time in invertible counterpoint at the octave.29

27 Brower, Serge Ivanovitch Taneiev, 207–8.

28 This accords with the views of Milsom and others on how composers worked out the contrapuntal
potential of their materials and then distributed the results at various points in a composition.
29 In his writings Milsom does not comment on the use of invertible counterpoint (or vertical-shifting
counterpoint to use Taneyev’s term). This is one major point of di�erence between his approach
and that of Schubert and others who pay close attention to manipulations of identi�ed two-part
modules by processes that include invertible counterpoint. By contrast, because Schubert de�nes
a module as having �xed starting and ending points, he does not dwell on situations that Taneyev
described as horizontal-shifting counterpoint.

i
i

Approaching Renaissance Music Using Taneyev’s Theories of Movable Counterpoint 189

Figures 4a/b/c. Taneyev’s examples of the basic version (Brower, Serge Ivanovitch Taneiev, 207–8).

The Tenor and Bassus in measures 5 to 7 take the earlier Bassus–Superius com-
bination in measures 3 to 5, but here involving direct-shifting counterpoint at the
octave (motive X in the Tenor is still the lowest-sounding part, while motive Y is
now a fourth rather than an eleventh above it). The sophistication of the three-part
combination of motives X and Y was not otherwise lost on Milsom, who pointed to
its reappearance in the middle of Josquin’s Plusieurs regretz (see �gure 5).

Figure 5. Josquin, Plusieurs regretz, mm. 33–36.

i
i

190 Acta Musicologica

An added subtlety in Plusieurs regretz, which was likely a later setting than Douleur
me bat, is the presence of motive X in a fourth voice, the Superius, beginning at mea-
sure 34. Figure 5 can therefore be viewed as a four-part basic version.30 One further
property of �gure 5 is how the �rst two entries (motives Y and X in the Contratenor
and Tenor respectively) are related to the third and fourth entries (Bassus and Su-
perius) by invertible counterpoint at the octave.
Figures 3 and 5 demonstrate Josquin’s great care in devising combinations that
work against each other at various vertical and horizontal combinations. Vertical-
shifting counterpoint at the eleventh (as seen in �gure 3) is an interval not normally
considered in Western counterpoint texts, but one that is occasionally found in Re-
naissance textures.31 Taneyev gives rules and examples for vertical-shifting intervals
at intervals up to the �fteenth, although he acknowledges that some of these inter-
vals are rarely encountered in the repertoire. Nevertheless, vertical shifts beyond the
octave, tenth, or twelfth are present in repertoire to an extent not fully disclosed in
contemporary scholarship. Taneyev’s theories alert us to their presence and provide
us with tools for recognizing them e�ciently.

Movable Counterpoint and a Willaert Motet

I now turn to a passage from Willaert’s four-part non-canonic motet Congratulamini
mihi omnes (see �gure 6a) that was discussed by Rifkin at some length in his article
from 1997.32 Again, my purpose here is to draw upon a speci�c repertoire example
that has been highlighted in the literature in order to demonstrate new insights that
emerge from a reconsideration of the example from the perspective of Taneyev’s
theories. Rifkin drew attention to the imitative duo in the top two voices beginning
in measures 56 to 57 and continuing to measure 62. He claimed that “the response
both confounds and surpasses expectation: not only does Willaert have the Tenor
enter at measure 59 on the hexachordally remote level of E, but he answers it at the
lower sixth, then trumps this immediately with a further entry at the seventh.”33
Let us consider the top two voices, Altus and Superius, as forming a Taneyev
original combination (beginning at mm. 56–57; see �gure 6b). This is answered by

30 Taneyev discussed expansions of the three-part basic version into four parts in later sections of
his book.
31 Other instances of intervals less commonly observed include passages in Nicolaus Craen’s Ave
Maria (invertible counterpoint at the seventh) and Jero. de Clibano’s Festivitatem dedicationis (in-
vertible counterpoint at the eleventh). These are brie�y described in Cumming and Schubert, “The
Origins of Pervasive Imitation,” 217–18.
32 Rifkin, “Miracles, Motivicity, and Mannerism,” 250–52. Modern editions of Willaert’s motet are in
Zenck, Adriani Willaert Opera Omnia, 1:26–30; Smijers and Merritt, Treize livres et motets parus,
2:32–41; Slim, A Gift of Madrigals and Motets, 2:72–81. In �gure 6, I follow Rifkin (251) in main-
taining original note values.
33 Rifkin, “Miracles, Motivicity, and Mannerism,” 250.

i
i

Approaching Renaissance Music Using Taneyev’s Theories of Movable Counterpoint 191

the Tenor and Bassus, which form a derivative combination (beginning at m. 59). A
comparison of the intervallic combinations between both pairs of voices reveals that
invertible counterpoint at the tenth is the operating principle behind the transfor-
mation of the original combination. This may not be immediately apparent because
neither Altus nor Superius is transposed up or down by tenth, yet the intervallic
sequences clearly indicate that invertible counterpoint, or more accurately, inverse-
shifting counterpoint at the tenth is in operation here.
A comparison of the harmonic intervals between Tenor and Bassus beginning at
measure 59 with those of the Bassus and Superius combination beginning at mea-
sure 60 reveals that inverse-shifting counterpoint at the twelfth is in operation (see
�gure 6c). Bear in mind that the numbers under the Superius indicate compound
equivalent intervals (15 is a double octave, 17 is an octave plus tenth, etc.).34 The
Tenor–Bassus combination functions as an original combination that yields the Bas-
sus–Superius derivative combination. Note that here there is no transposition by
twelfth or octave of either line from the original combination.
Taneyev made clear that a comparison of harmonic intervals between the orig-
inal and derivative combinations was a useful, if somewhat laborious, method for
identifying vertical-shifting counterpoint. However, and as described above, at the
core of Taneyev’s theory of vertical-shifting counterpoint is a mathematical formula
for calculating the interval (or the index as he terms it) at which inverse- or direct-
shifting counterpoint takes place. Applying this formula to the material considered
in �gure 6b leads to the annotations given in �gure 6d. As described above, the for-
mula for an original combination is I + II, where capital Roman numerals indicate
the higher and lower voices respectively. The index of vertical-shifting counterpoint
for the derivative combination is calculated by summing together the intervals by
which each voice is transposed (or shifted) up or down. In the Willaert example,
voice I (Superius) moves down a twelfth (v = -11) and voice II (Altus) moves down a
third (v = 2). The result is Jv = -9, the index for inverse-shifting counterpoint at the
tenth (see �gure 6d).
Following the same process, we can calculate the index of vertical-shifting coun-
terpoint between the Tenor–Bassus combination starting in measure 59 and the
Bassus–Superius combination starting in measure 60 (see �gure 6e). The Tenor is
shifted down a sixth (Iv = -5) and the Bassus up a fourteenth (IIv = -13). The index of
vertical-shifting counterpoint is therefore Iv = -5 + IIv = -13, which results in Jv = -18
(a nineteenth). This is the compound equivalent of a twelfth, so we can conclude that
vertical-shifting (or invertible) counterpoint at the twelfth operates here.

34 For the sake of convenience, I refer to inverse-shifting counterpoint at the twelfth rather than
nineteenth in this example.

i
i

192 Acta Musicologica

Figure 6a. Willaert, Congratulamini mihi omnes, mm. 56–62 (with text).

Figure 6b. Willaert, Congratulamini mihi omnes, mm. 56–62 (invertible counterpoint
at the tenth [A–S and T–B]).

Figure 6c. Willaert, Congratulamini mihi omnes, mm. 56–62 (invertible counterpoint
at the twel�h).

i
i

Approaching Renaissance Music Using Taneyev’s Theories of Movable Counterpoint 193

Figure 6d. Willaert, Congratulamini mihi omnes, mm. 56–62 (Taneyev’s inverse-shi�ing
counterpoint at the tenth).

Figure 6e. Willaert, Congratulamini mihi omnes, mm. 56–62 (Taneyev’s inverse-shi�ing
counterpoint at the twel�h).

Movable Counterpoint and Fi�eenth-Century Music

Although most recent scholarship has focused on the music of Josquin and other
composers active in the sixteenth century, there is growing awareness that music
of the �fteenth century presents a number of distinct challenges for the contra-
puntal analyst. Amongst these is the textural contrast between pervasive imitation
that was cultivated by Josquin and others and earlier repertoire that was not de-
pendent on this technique.35 Imitative textures provide ready access to uncovering

35 In a series of articles, Julie E. Cumming has explored this issue from di�erent angles: tracing the use
of imitation across �fteenth-century music; interrogating the aesthetic outlook of varietas at this

i
i

194 Acta Musicologica

processes such as stretto fuga or modular counterpoint. Another apparently con-

founding factor pertains most particularly to the music of Ockeghem, especially his
canonic writing, and has been succinctly expressed by Fabrice Fitch:

implicit within the general view of Ockeghem’s melodic style is the virtual absence of
footholds from which to unravel anything resembling a systematic approach; and yet a sys-
tematic approach is an implicit condition of the canonic enterprise.36

Fitch’s comments are a prelude to his demonstration of how systematic manipula-

tion of musical materials do indeed operate within Ockeghem’s Missa Prolacionum.
In particular, he isolates an extended passage at almost the midpoint of the “Et re-
surrexit,” a location where there is a saturation of motivic interplay. I propose that
at the heart of this passage is a subtle demonstration of horizontal-shifting counter-
point.37
Figure 7 presents statements of two motives labeled A and B (following Fitch).
Ockeghem appears to have given special attention to motive A: it is found ten times
in notated form (twenty in sounding form) in the “Et resurrexit,” and it has also been
identi�ed in other sections of the Mass.38 It is sometimes �anked by other recurring
motives; for instance, the three iterations of motive B in �gure 7 are distributed
before and after the presentations of motive A. The combinations of motives A and
B in �gure 7 are located, as Fitch observes, shortly before the “most audible formal
marker of the midpoint, the discantus’ perfect long,”39 and this is the only place
where motive A is heard simultaneously in three voices. Close inspection of this
example brings to mind Taneyev’s basic version: motive A combines with itself at
di�erent pitches (G and C) and at two temporal o�sets (a breve between Discantus 2
and Contra 2, a semibreve between Contra 2 and Contra 1). The �rst statement of
motive B in Contra 2 combines with motive A in Discantus 2, while the second
and third statements show how motive B can combine with itself and also with the
third statement of motive A (that is, a combination involving two statements of one
motive and a single statement of a di�erent motive similar to what we have seen in
�gure 4c above).

time; investigating changes in motet style in the late �fteenth century; and considering emerging
analytical tools appropriate for �fteenth-century repertoire. See Cumming, “From Variety to Repe-
tition”; Cumming, “Text-Setting and Imitative Technique”; Cumming, “From Two-Part Framework
to Movable Module”; and Cumming and Schubert, “The Origins of Pervasive Imitation.”
36 Fitch, “On Compositional Choice,” 85.
37 The “Et resurrexit” is a double canon whereby Contra 1 and Contra 2 imitate at the �fth above at
a temporal o�set of twelve breves, while Discantus 1 and 2 begin simultaneously on pitches a �fth
apart and in di�erent mensurations.
38 Ibid., 88–91. Fitch notes the minor di�erence in Discantus 2 (m. 144) being a cambiata quarter-note
motion typical of Ockeghem’s style.
39 Ibid., 91. Figures 7 and 8 in the present study are based on the version of the Missa Prolacionum
available online: http://josquin.stanford.edu/work/?id=Ock1011 (accessed October 3, 2018).

i
i

Approaching Renaissance Music Using Taneyev’s Theories of Movable Counterpoint 195

Figure 7. Ockeghem, Missa Prolacionum (“Et resurrexit”), mm. 143–49.

Bearing in mind Taneyev’s discussion of how a basic version can yield two two-part
versions that may be distributed according to the composer’s choice, we can turn to
inspect a combination found shortly after the midpoint of the “Et resurrexit.” Figure 8
presents motive A in Discantus 1 and Contra 1. The same interval of imitation (�fth
below) and temporal o�set (a breve) are found in �gures 7 (Discantus 2–Contra 2)
and 8 (Discantus 1–Contra 1), although the starting pitches have been transposed
up a �fth in �gure 8. The similarity between these two examples reinforces the sym-
metrical structure of the “Et resurrexit” identi�ed by Fitch as they seem to bookend
the midpoint Discantus 1 perfect long.40 We may even expect a third entry of mo-
tive A beginning on the pitch D on the second minim in measure 157 (marked with
an X in �gure 8). This would have led to an exact repetition of the three-part com-
bination heard earlier in �gure 7, here transposed up a �fth. However, Discantus 2
instead doubles Contra 1 at the fourth below and proceeds in similar motion with
Contra 1 until this voice completes motive A. The situation here reinforces the more
general observation made by Fitch that a “distinctive feature of Ockeghem’s imita-
tive practice [is] to suggest, set up, or initiate an imitative statement, only to deviate
from it after a couple of pitches.”41

40 Figure 8 is immediately preceded by what Fitch labels motive C occurring in Contra 1 and Contra 2
in measures 152 to 154, thus disturbing slightly an exact symmetry that could have come about if
�gure 8 had been placed in these measures instead.
41 Ibid., 89. Another instance of horizontal-shifting counterpoint occurs a little earlier in the “Et
resurrexit.” At measure 126 Discantus 2 enters with a setting of “Et in spiritus” against a comple-
mentary melody in Contra 2. Discantus 1 follows with the same material as Discantus 2 imitated
at the �fth above in measure 135, but Contra 1 shifts the material presented earlier in Contra 2 by
three measures to the right (also imitated at the �fth above; compare Contra 2 beginning at mea-
sure 123 with Contra 1 beginning at measure 135). This means that the melodic material given to
each Discantus voice must operate with two versions of the material in the Contra voices, that is,
in horizontal-shifting counterpoint at Jh = -3.

i
i

196 Acta Musicologica

Figure 8. Ockeghem, Missa Prolacionum (“Et resurrexit”), mm. 155–58.

In common with examples cited in studies by Cumming and Schubert, �gures 7

and 8 involve motivic materials that are embedded or “hidden” in the contrapuntal
fabric. This seems to be a general characteristic of the use of imitation in �fteenth-
century music and the aspiring analyst needs to be alert to contrapuntal combi-
nations that may not necessarily stand out from other surface details of the mu-
sical texture. Although sixteenth-century repertoire may be somewhat easier to
navigate in terms of identifying contrapuntal patterns in imitative or non-imitative
contexts, there are still many instances of concealed combinations that are struc-
turally signi�cant. This point is emphasized in Schubert’s 2007 study of Palestrina’s
motets, and it is also characteristic of many of the examples selected for demon-
stration in Taneyev’s text. This point of common contact between �fteenth- and
sixteenth-century compositional processes may well be a mechanism that helps
reconcile and advance analytical studies of counterpoint. Another commonality,
advanced particularly in the present study, is the role of movable counterpoint.
With �gures 7 and 8 above, it is but a short step to the combination known as
the invertible canon or three-voice stretto fuga.42 To make this step, a third voice
would need to imitate at the fourth above the �rst voice, not at the same pitch as
in �gure 7.

42 See Cumming and Schubert, “The Origins of Pervasive Imitation,” 211–20 for a detailed survey of
repertoire examples and pitch entry patterns, particularly from Petrucci’s �rst �ve books of motet
prints. A chapter is devoted to invertible canonic openings in Schubert, Modal Counterpoint, Tonal
Style. Invertible canons have also been described in Collins, “Zarlino and Berardi” and Aerts, “Auf
dem Prüfstand.”

i
i

Approaching Renaissance Music Using Taneyev’s Theories of Movable Counterpoint 197

Conclusion
Ockeghem’s Missa Prolacionum and his three-part stacked canon Prenez sur moi have
intrigued many generations of scholars and performers because of how they demon-
strate canonic writing developed to an extent unlike anything found in earlier reper-
toire.43 There is a temptation, it follows, to view Ockeghem as the originator of many
contrapuntal techniques that found their way, possibly aided by the signi�cant in�u-
ence of the French court, to other centers of European musical culture. The double
canon, in particular, enjoyed extensive cultivation in the decades following Ock-
eghem’s mass, culminating in Andrea Antico’s publication of multi-voice canons,
mostly double canons, in 1520.44 Ockeghem’s cultivation of diatonic canon at the
intervals of the fourth and �fth was signaled by Peter Urquhart more than twenty
years ago,45 with the importance of this observation extending to fuga or imitation
more generally in the late �fteenth and sixteenth centuries. Building upon Fabrice
Fitch’s recent study, it is now possible to start opening up connections in terms of
analytical methodologies between composers of Ockeghem’s generation or earlier
and composers associated with sixteenth-century imitative counterpoint. This is a
much-needed development because large areas of Renaissance repertoire cannot be
described adequately in terms of stretto fuga alone (the topic that has received the
most scholarly attention to date). Such scenarios may include, for instance, textures
that do not employ imitation at close temporal o�sets, have unequal distances be-
tween voice entries, or have short passages of motivic interplay in otherwise much
longer melodic lines that may be part of extended canonic textures (as we saw above
in Ockeghem’s mass).
I contend that inclusion of principles and techniques informed by Taneyev’s the-
ories will help to advance the analytical agendas of Renaissance music scholars. This
is because Taneyev provided a uni�ed system to account for contrapuntal proce-
dures applied routinely in Renaissance music. His emphasis on two-part combina-
tions was prophetic in terms of the importance that this framework would assume in
the writings of later scholars (as exempli�ed in the studies by Crocker and Cumming
cited above). Further, Taneyev provides a clear vocabulary to describe transforma-
tions of voice combinations either horizontally or vertically such that the analyst
can systematically identify these procedures in contrapuntal repertoire. These pro-

43 The term “stacked canon” was coined by Alan Gosman to describe a pattern where successive
voices are separated by the same interval of imitation and by the same temporal o�set. These
were cultivated by several composers in the sixteenth century. See Gosman, “Stacked Canon.”
44 Antico, Motetti novi e chanzoni franciose. For thoroughgoing studies of the contents of this col-
lection and the cultural connections between composers or regional centres that can be explored
using speci�c pieces, see Bernstein, “Josquin’s Chansons”; Dobbins, “Andrea Antico’s Chansons”;
Benthem, “‘Domine, quis habitabit in tabernaculo tuo?’”; Litterick, “Out of the Shadows”; Urquhart,
“Remarks on Some Chansons.”
45 Urquhart, “Calculated to Please the Ear.”

i
i

198 Acta Musicologica

cedures may include those that are already well known or those that are less of-
ten considered or simply missed by scholars, such as two-part combinations using
inverse- or direct-shifting intervals beyond the octave, tenth, or twelfth. The present
study has not dwelt on Taneyev’s highly detailed and systematic voice-leading rules
for each index of inverse- or direct-shifting counterpoint. These were formulated as
much for pedagogical as for analytical purposes, the two going hand in hand for
Taneyev.46 My emphasis here has been on the basic principles governing contra-
puntal transformations of two-part combinations and how these transformations
may be identi�ed in repertoire examples. I close by quoting a passage from Rifkin
on analyzing works by Josquin that is also applicable to earlier and later generations
of composers: consideration of Taneyev’s ideas will assist us “to get beyond the sur-
face of Josquin’s music: the intricate play with motivic combination and canon, the
remarkable equilibrium between contending structural elements.”47

Reference List
Abraham, Gerald. “Review of Convertible Counterpoint in the Strict Style by S. I. Taneyev, G. Ackley
Brower.” The Musical Times 107, no. 1475 (1966): 38.
Aerts, Hans. “Auf dem Prüfstand: Zarlinos Anweisungen zum Kontrapunkt ‘a mente’.” In Musiktheo-
rie und Improvisation: Kongressbericht der IX. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie, 2009,
edited by Jürgen Blume and Konrad Georgi, 159–71. Mainz: Schott, 2015.
Antico, Andrea. Motetti novi e chanzoni franciose a quatro sopra doi. Venice, 1520. Reprint, Geneva:
Minko�, 1982.
Benthem, Jaap van. “‘Domine, quis habitabit in tabernaculo tuo?’ A Neglected Psalm Setting in An-
tico’s Motetti novi e chanzoni franciose.” In Josquin and the Sublime: Proceedings of the International
Josquin Symposium at Roosevelt Academy Middelburg, 12–15 July 2009, edited by Albert Clement
and Eric Jas, 73–105. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011.
Bernstein, Lawrence F. “Josquin’s Chansons as Generic Paradigms.” In Music in Renaissance Cities
and Courts: Studies in Honor of Lewis Lockwood, edited by Jessie Ann Owens and Anthony M.
Cummings, 35–55. Warren, MI: Harmonie Park Press, 1997.
Brower, G. Ackley, trans. Serge Ivanovitch Taneiev: Convertible Counterpoint in the Strict Style. Boston:
Bruce Humphries, 1962. Reprint, Boston: Branden, 2007.
Brown, David. “Taneyev, Sergey Ivanovich.” In Grove Music Online. Accessed October 3, 2018. http:
//oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/27469.
Canguilhem, Philippe, ed. Chanter sur le livre à la Renaissance: Les traités de contrepoint de Vicente
Lusitano. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013.

46 Although classes in movable counterpoint are a regular part of tertiary music curricula in Russia
and elsewhere, it is not feasible to incorporate this aspect of contrapuntal pedagogy in Western
institutions for a host of reasons ranging from overcrowded curricula to budgetary and sta�ng
constraints. A more promising avenue lies in digital humanities scholarship because Taneyev’s
systematic presentation of rules for each index of vertical-shifting counterpoint lends itself to
algorithmic reformulation in computer programming code. The purpose here would be quickly
and e�ciently to identify all kinds of movable counterpoint in a large sample of digitally-encoded
repertoire. This long-term task is already underway and will be reported in a future study.
47 Rifkin, “Sound and Structure,” 672.

i
i

Approaching Renaissance Music Using Taneyev’s Theories of Movable Counterpoint 199

Carpenter, Ellon. “The Contributions of Taneev, Catoire, Conus, Garbuzov, Mazel and Tiulin.” In Rus-
sian Theoretical Thought in Music, edited by Gordon D. McQuere, 253–73. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI
Research Press, 1983.
Collins, Denis. “‘So You Want to Write a Canon?’ An Historically-Informed New Approach for the
Modern Theory Class.” College Music Symposium 48 (2008): 108–23.
. “Taneyev’s Theories of Moveable Counterpoint and the Music of J. S. Bach.” Bach 46, no. 2
(2015): 22–45.
. “Zarlino and Berardi as Teachers of Canon.” Theoria 7 (1993): 103–23.
Crocker, Richard L. “Discant, Counterpoint, and Harmony.” Journal of the American Musicological
Society 15, no. 1 (1962): 1–21.
. Studies in Medieval Music Theory and the Early Sequence. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997.
Cumming, Julie E. “Composing Imitative Counterpoint around a Cantus Firmus: Two Motets by Hein-
rich Isaac.” The Journal of Musicology 28, no. 3 (2011): 231–88.
. “From Two-Part Framework to Movable Module.” In Medieval Music in Practice: Studies in
Honor of Richard Crocker, edited by Judith Peraino, 177–215. Münster: American Institute of Mu-
sicology, 2013.
. “From Variety to Repetition: The Birth of Imitative Polyphony.” Journal of the Alamire Foun-
dation 8 (2008): 21–44.
. “Text-Setting and Imitative Technique in Petrucci’s First Five Motet Prints.” In The Motet
Around 1500: On the Relationship of Imitation and Text Treatment?, edited by Thomas Schmidt-
Beste, 83–110. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012.
Cumming, Julie E., and Peter N. Schubert. “The Origins of Pervasive Imitation.” In The Cambridge
History of Fifteenth-Century Music, edited by Anna Maria Busse Berger and Jesse Rodin, 200–228.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Damschroder, David, and David R. Williams. Music Theory from Zarlino to Schenker: A Bibliography
and Guide. Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 1990.
Desbruslais, Simon. “The Western Reception of Sergei Taneyev.” Journal of the Russian Society for
Music Theory 9, no. 1 (2015): 7–18.
Dobbins, Frank. “Andrea Antico’s Chansons and the Di�usion of French Song in the Second Decade
of the Sixteenth Century.” In La la la . . . Maistre Henri: Mélanges de Musicologie O�erts à Henri
Vanhulst, edited by Christine Ballman and Valérie Dufour, 127–57. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009.
Fitch, Fabrice. “On Compositional Choice and the Missa Prolacionum.” Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke
Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 67, nos. 1/2 (2017): 83–102.
Froebe, Folker. “Satzmodelle des ‘Contrapunto alla mente’ und ihre Bedeutung für den Stilwandel um
1600.” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie 4, nos. 1/2 (2007): 13–55.
Gauldin, Robert. “The Composition of Late Renaissance Stretto Canons.” Theory and Practice 21 (1996):
29–54.
Gosman, Alan. “Stacked Canon and Renaissance Compositional Procedure.” Journal of Music Theory
41, no. 2 (1997): 289–317.
Grimshaw, Julian. “Compositional Phenomena in the Missa Papae Marcelli.” Recercare 24, nos. 1/2
(2012): 5–33.
. “Sixteenth-Century English fuga: Sequential and Peak-Note Subjects.” The Musical Times 148,
no. 1900 (2007): 61–78.
Grove, Paul R. “Sergei Ivanovich Taneev’s Doctrine of the Canon: A Translation and Commentary.”
PhD diss., University of Arizona, 1999.
Haymoz, Jean-Yves. “Discovering the Practice of Improvised Counterpoint.” In Studies in Historical
Improvisation: From Cantare super librum to Partimenti, edited by Massimiliano Guido, 90–111.
London: Routledge, 2017.
Jans, Markus. “Alle gegen Eine: Satzmodelle in Note-gegen-Note-Sätzen des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts.”
Basler Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis 10 (1986): 101–20.

i
i

200 Acta Musicologica

Litterick, Lousie. “Out of the Shadows: The Double Canon En l’ombre d’ung buissonet.” In Instruments,
Ensembles, and Repertory, 1300–1600, Essays in Honour of Keith Polk, edited by Timothy J. McGee
and Stewart Carter, 263–98. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013.
Macey, Patrick, ed. Secular Works for Five Voices. Vol. 29 of New Josquin Edition. Utrecht: Koninklijke
Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, 2016.
Milsom, John. “Absorbing Lassus.” Early Music 33, no. 2 (2005): 305–20.
. “Crecquillon, Clemens, and Four-Voice fuga.” In Beyond Contemporary Fame: Reassessing the
Art of Clemens non Papa and Thomas Crecquillon, edited by Eric Jas, 293–345. Turnhout: Brepols,
2005.
. “‘Imitatio,’ ‘Intertextuality,’ and Early Music.” In Citation and Authority in Medieval and Re-
naissance Musical Culture: Learning from the Learned, edited by Suzannah Clark and Elizabeth Eva
Leach, 141–51. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2005.
. “Josquin and the Act of Self-Quotation: The Case of Plusieurs regretz.” In Uno gentile et sub-
tile ingenio: Studies in Renaissance Music in Honour of Bonnie J. Blackburn, edited by Jennifer M.
Bloxam, Gioia Filocamo, and Leofranc Holford-Strevens, 521–32. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009.
. “Josquin des Prez and the Combinative Impulse.” In The Motet Around 1500: On the Relationship
of Imitation and Text Treatment?, edited by Thomas Schmidt-Beste, 211–46. Turnhout: Brepols,
2012.
Morris, Robert D. “The Structure of First-Species Canon in Modal, Tonal and Atonal Musics.” Intégral
9 (1995): 33–66.
Ott, Immanuel. Methoden der Kanonkomposition bei Josquin Des Prez und seinen Zeitgenossen. Hildes-
heim: Olms, 2014.
Owens, Jessie Ann. “The Milan Partbooks: Evidence of Cipriano De Rore’s Compositional Process.”
Journal of the American Musicological Society 37, no. 2 (1984): 270–98.
Parker, Beverly Lewis. “Direct Shifting and Mixed Shifting: Important Contrapuntal Techniques or
Taneev’s Oddities?” South African Journal of Musicology 1 (1981): 1–29.
Rifkin, Joshua. “Miracles, Motivicity, and Mannerism: Adrian Willaert’s Videns Dominus �entes sorores
Lazari and Some Aspects of Motet Composition in the 1520s.” In Hearing the Motet: Essays on
the Motet of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, edited by Dolores Pesce, 243–59. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1997.
. “Motivik—Konstruktion—Humanismus: Zur Motette Huc me sydereo von Josquin des Prez.”
In Die Motette: Beiträge zu ihrer Gattungsgeschichte, edited by Herbert Schneider, 105–34. Mainz:
Schott, 1992.
. “Sound and Structure: Le Marteau sans maître and Mille regretz.” In Qui musicam in se habet:
Studies in Honor of Alejandro Enrique Planchart, edited by Anna Zayaruznaya, Bonnie J. Blackburn,
and Stanley Boorman, 635–73. Madison, WI: American Institute of Musicology, 2015.
Schubert, Peter N. “Hidden Forms in Palestrina’s First Book of Four-Voice Motets.” Journal of the Amer-
ican Musicological Society 60, no. 3 (2007): 483–556.
. Modal Counterpoint, Tonal Style. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Schubert, Peter N., and Marcelle Lessoil-Daelman. “What Modular Analysis Can Tell Us about Musical
Modeling in the Renaissance.” Music Theory Online 19, no. 1 (2013). Accessed October 3, 2018.
https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.13.19.1/mto.13.19.1.schubert_lessoil-daelman.html.
Segall, Christopher. “Sergei Taneev’s Vertical-Shifting Counterpoint: An Introduction.” Music Theory
Online 20, no. 3 (2014). Accessed October 3, 2018. http://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.14.20.3/mto.14.20.
3.segall.php.
Slim, H. Colin, ed. A Gift of Madrigals and Motets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.
Smijers, Albert, and A. Tillman Merritt, eds. Treize livres et motets parus chez Pierre Attaingnant en
1534 et 1535. Paris: Editions De l’Oiseau-lyre, 1934–64.
Taneyev, Sergei Ivanovich. Podvizhnoy kontrapunkt strogogo pis’ma. Moscow: M. Belyaev, 1909.
Urquhart, Peter. “Calculated to Please the Ear: Ockeghem’s Canonic Legacy.” Tijdschrift van de Konin-
klijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 47, nos. 1/2 (1997): 72–98.

i
i

Approaching Renaissance Music Using Taneyev’s Theories of Movable Counterpoint 201

. “Remarks on Some Chansons by Jean Mouton, and Related Matters.” Tijdschrift van de Konin-
klijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis 65, nos. 1/2 (2015): 37–65.
Wehrmeyer, Andreas. “Sergej Ivanovič Taneevs Theorie des ‘bewegbaren’ Kontrapunkts.” Musiktheo-
rie 7 (1992): 71–79.
Zenck, Hermann, ed. Adriani Willaert Opera Omnia. Vol. 3 of Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae. Rome:
American Institute of Musicology, 1950.