Music theory

[Richard Barrett]

This page explains why parallel/consecutive fifths are sometimes to be avoided - https://www.schoolofcomposition.com/...rallel-fifths/

Without an understanding of why composers might have used such a rule, the general restriction imposed by the rule is pretty pointless. This page gives a better explanation than many, and certainly makes the rule more understandable than a simple dictat.

The explanation there is not bad as far as it goes, but really any theory of harmony that's based on rules to be obeyed is in my opinion an antimusical way to express things. Composers in previous periods didn't learn what was "disallowed" but how to make a consistent harmony in the style of their time, not to avoid things but to aim at something. The key concept here I think is not "independence of voices", as the article has it, but consistency. If you understand and indeed feel what it means, everything falls into place without the need for avoiding this or that, because those things never arise. As in: your driving instructor never had to tell you not to drive straight into a wall. (At least I hope I can assume not.) This sense of consistency (mutatis mutandis) is exactly comparable to the "rule" in twelve-tone music not to repeat a pitch-class until all others have been sounded.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

"Rules" is a lazy way of expressing it - and is only appropriate for teachers, students, and examiners in classes with too many people and with too little time.

"Conventions" is better. If you wish to compose Music in the style of [whoever] - or to analyse their Music effectively - then you have to understand (and reproduce) the conventions in which they worked. The reasons why those conventions came into being, and why they might have been discarded by later composers, is a different (and fascinating) matter of Cultural History.

But it should be (or "become") audibly clear that parallel perfect fifths (or octaves) between any of the voices in a four-part harmonisation of a Chorale (or in a 2 or 3 part contrapuntal piece) doesn't sound "in the style of Bach". And, if you've mastered the voice-leading conventions of the time, they don't happen. (Well - not often ] Just as it should - but doesn't very often to markers of exam. papers - be immediately obvious that a harmonisation "based on the Rules" doesn't sound like Bach, either: it just sounds like some of the duller Victorian hymn settings.

[Dave2002]

As in: your driving instructor never had to tell you not to drive straight into a wall. (At least I hope I can assume not.) This sense of consistency (mutatis mutandis) is exactly comparable to the "rule" in twelve-tone music not to repeat a pitch-class until all others have been sounded.

Unfortunately I know at least two people who managed to do the equivalent of that when learning to drive. One drove into a large pillar at the entrance I believe to a grand house, and I think the other did drive into a wall. The first driver - who actually told me about the incident - stopped first, then drove at the pillar, so not a fast manoeuvre! Another I've heard about (several) went "straight on" at a roundabout - think about that (or maybe "straight across" at the ...), while yet another went "right round" the roundabout - think about that one too.

It's difficult to cope with "don't do" rules - and sometimes they have exactly the opposite effect. It's not always a good practice to teach people by showing them "bad" examples, as quite often they remember those, and reproduce those instead of the good ones.

However, don't do rules - if they are explained - and also understood - can have a useful purpose.

I agree about having rules "to be obeyed" being antimusical - though as a means of having results which may be more acceptable to listeners of the time they may be preferable to "no rules".

There may have been other factors leading to the development of some of the rules - such as the greater use of instruments - a switch away from purely choral music, and the perceived/imposed need to be able to hear the words in choral music, which tended to move composers away from the very euphonius polyphonic style.

[Pabmusic]

"Rules" is a lazy way of expressing it - and is only appropriate for teachers, students, and examiners in classes with too many people and with too little time.

"Conventions" is better. If you wish to compose Music in the style of [whoever] - or to analyse their Music effectively - then you have to understand (and reproduce) the conventions in which they worked. The reasons why those conventions came into being, and why they might have been discarded by later composers, is a different (and fascinating) matter of Cultural History.

But it should be (or "become") audibly clear that parallel perfect fifths (or octaves) between any of the voices in a four-part harmonisation of a Chorale (or in a 2 or 3 part contrapuntal piece) doesn't sound "in the style of Bach". And, if you've mastered the voice-leading conventions of the time, they don't happen. (Well - not often ] Just as it should - but doesn't very often to markers of exam. papers - be immediately obvious that a harmonisation "based on the Rules" doesn't sound like Bach, either: it just sounds like some of the duller Victorian hymn settings.

Spot on, I'd say!

And one for Richard, too.

[Richard Barrett]

There may have been other factors leading to the development of some of the rules - such as the greater use of instruments - a switch away from purely choral music, and the perceived/imposed need to be able to hear the words in choral music, which tended to move composers away from the very euphonius polyphonic style.

I'm not sure which "rules" you have in mind there, but I think it would be a very good idea to try and avoid thinking and talking in terms of rules at all.

[Pabmusic]

I'm not sure which "rules" you have in mind there, but I think it would be a very good idea to try and avoid thinking and talking in terms of rules at all.

Maybe 'consecutive fifths' has a similar status to "don't split the infinitive" in English - something people can remember teacher getting cross about.

And neither is a 'rule', of course.

[MrGongGong]

Back to theory ....

This page explains why parallel/consecutive fifths are sometimes to be avoided - https://www.schoolofcomposition.com/...rallel-fifths/

Without an understanding of why composers might have used such a rule, the general restriction imposed by the rule is pretty pointless. This page gives a better explanation than many, and certainly makes the rule more understandable than a simple dictat.

Take no notice


"While there are fascinating psychoacoustic reasons for this, we don’t really need to get into the science here"

Why not ? It's the most interesting bit

anyhow

Enjoy

I really miss Patrick Gowers who used to play us examples of Bach that broke all the so-called "rules".

I do think there are underlying ideas in some of this though. The idea that one has to understand ALL the "rules" BEFORE "breaking" them.
Which is, of course, utter nonsense ..... unless they also mean the "rules" of Carnatic music etc etc and understand EVERYTHING in Formalised Music (which apparently has a few maths errors ?)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I really miss Patrick Gowers who used to play us examples of Bach that broke all the so-called "rules".

- Bach would have got a Grade B in his "Harmonisation in the Style of Bach" paper if he'd sat an "A"-level exam. (A bit like Max Bygraves who ised to claim that he'd enetered a "Max Bygraves Impersonation Contest" and come third.)

And yes - the science bit is the best (and most interesting) explanation of why the Consecutive Fifths became the most strongly-enforced anathema.

[ahinton]

And yes - the science bit is the best (and most interesting) explanation of why the Consecutive Fifths became the most strongly-enforced anathema.

I wonder what punishment the rule enforcers might believe ought to have been dispensed to Sorabji for having written the 18th of his 100 Transcendental Studies for piano which probably has more consecutive (perfect) fifths than there are hours in the average month...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I wonder what punishment the rule enforcers might believe ought to have been dispensed to Sorabji for having written the 18th of his 100 Transcendental Studies for piano which probably has more consecutive (perfect) fifths than there are hours in the average month...

"Sentenced to being performed far less regularly than its value as a work of Art demands", perhaps?

[ahinton]

"Sentenced to being performed far less regularly than its value as a work of Art demands", perhaps?

Who can tell?(!) And wasn't it Schumann to whom is attributed to complaint "pick out the fifths and leave us in peace!"? Anyway, at least it's not sentenced to being unrecorded, for it's on Vol. I of an ongoing series of CDs of the entire cycle recorded on the BIS label by the excellent Fredrik Ullén; Vols. I - V area already out and recording of the last two CDs is due to be completed later this year.

[Serial_Apologist]

Who can tell?(!) And wasn't it Schumann to whom is attributed to complaint "pick out the fifths and leave us in peace!"? Anyway, at least it's not sentenced to being unrecorded, for it's on Vol. I of an ongoing series of CDs of the entire cycle recorded on the BIS label by the excellent Fredrik Ullén; Vols. I - V area already out and recording of the last two CDs is due to be completed later this year.

I must try and find that quote from John Cage, in which he talks about disliking thirds because they reminded him of Brahms. It will take wading through "Silence" to find!

[LeMartinPecheur]

I must try and find that quote from John Cage, in which he talks about disliking thirds because they reminded him of Brahms. It will take wading through "Silence" to find!

Andrew Clements quotes it as "I never really like thirds, which is why I never really like Brahms."

[Dave2002]

I'm not sure which "rules" you have in mind there, but I think it would be a very good idea to try and avoid thinking and talking in terms of rules at all.

OK - can I try "conventions" or "policies" - or some other word of your suggestion?

[Richard Barrett]

Formalized Music (which apparently has a few maths errors ?)

Hundreds. But as Xenakis pointed out to some IRCAM boffins criticising his scientific consistency: "but your music isn't interesting."