Reddit mentions of Modal and Tonal Counterpoint: From Josquin to Stravinsky

It is probably true that everyone who has aspirations to become a composer should read Fux at some point, but there are other books on the subject that might be more accessible to someone who's just starting out. Schoenberg's book is excellent. There's also Harold Owen, for a less rigorous, more inclusive approach.
In my opinion we are doing our students a disservice in not teaching them that clefs are movable objects. With three clefs and five lines, one can represent every pitch on every line or space in several different ways, which is more important than it seems. If you can imagine a change of clef (and key signature, if necessary) at the far left side of the page, you can transpose anything to any key at sight.

I might define Counterpoint more broadly: Voices that both maintain their horizontal individuality and work in concert with each other to form vertical sonorities.

1. There are plenty of 2-part counterpoint examples. And I might also qualify this that counterpoint does not rely on chords. It relies on the horizontal aspect - line, the "simultaneities" are largely "resultant" of the interaction of the lines. Obviously, the more parts there are, the more difficult it becomes to maintain independence of lines, but that also depends on how one defines counterpoint or if one is interested in preserving that aspect of counterpoint or not. But yes, on the whole, 3 and 4 part counterpoint are probably the most common number of voices historically.
   
2. It has.
   
   >The rules of counterpoint have us resolve certain intervals and chords to consonance, that usually being a major/minor triad. Is there anyway to break out of that while keeping the principle intact?
   
   Yes, redefine consonance. I caution though you're focusing on this and even said it at the beginning but that's not true. Counterpoint is very often formed with consonances and no resolution of dissonance at all. The resolution of dissonance to consonance is not a "contrapuntal principle". It's just something that's used in counterpoint. But it's not what makes counterpoint counterpoint as you seem to think.
   
   >Maybe if we open it up to more notes, 4,5, and 6 note chords, we can have alternative consonant chords?
   
   Consonance is context-based. Modern composers treat things like C-E-G-A or C-E-G-B as consonances. They treat C-F-Bb as consonances. They treat C-D-E as consonances.
   
   >But perhaps counterpoint stops working with so many notes because the notes can't really move around because all the spaces are occupied? Does that make any sense?
   
   This is a number of parts issue though, not a consonance/dissonance issue. Yes, as I said above, the more voices you have, the harder it is to maintain linear independence. But that has nothing to do with consonance or dissonance, just sheer number of voices (because you can have 4 part counterpoint and just double a note, right?).
   
   >it seems like counterpoint is one of the greatest techniques in western music and it seems to be drifting out of fashion,
   
   supposition that it's great, and that it's drifting out of fashion. It may be neither. And you may just not be familiar with that many examples of it, or, you're defining it in a way that means some things that are contrapuntal might not meet your criteria.
   
   >and I want to bring it back in a novel way!
   
   You're not the first.
   
   For a simple overview, try:
   
   https://www.amazon.com/Modal-Tonal-Counterpoint-Josquin-Stravinsky/dp/0028721454
   
   (if you can find one for less than redonkulous textbook prices!).
   
   

I'd take a look at more modern textbooks that are founded in Fux rather than studying the Fux itself (although there's nothing wrong with looking at it for its historical value. The same could be said of Mozart's figured bass text). Owen's "Modal and Tonal Counterpoint" is pretty good for species counterpoint, if you can get a copy. http://www.amazon.com/Modal-Tonal-Counterpoint-Josquin-Stravinsky/dp/0028721454