What's wrong with parallel fifths--really?

[lontas]

Hello all,

I've resumed my music classes and once again, they've told us to avoid using parallel fifths in our compositions. This philosophy has always baffled me because I really don't hear anything bad or wrong with parallel fifths. In fact, I have two compositions that I wrote specifically to demonstrate that parallel fifths don't sound bad. I think they can sound bad if you position them poorly, but then, any progression can sound bad if you position it poorly.

So, I've been wondering--for what reason are parallel fifths frowned upon? The best answer I've been able to come up with is that the relative strength of the fifth can make it sound like you're changing the tonality (i.e. the key) of the piece. Can any of you more experienced musicians offer some insight?

[Alan Lastufka]

Aren't parrallel fifths the same thing as a power-chord?

If so - I'm guessing that's the reason. ;)

No, seriously I have no idea, but I guess I'll find out soon, I've ordered some of the pdf lessons from Alexander University and hope to start the Writing for Strings courses when time and money permit. It'll be the first music class I've taken.

[javismiles]

hi there,
see Debussy for example, he extensively used parallel fifths and also tritones in ways that according to the tradition would have been simply disastrous
For Debussy , parallel fifths , tritones etc had their own beauty and their own place

I guess the answer can be
everything is changing, the music that people make , like, enjoy, feel, produce, and rules are dead things, they live in the past, rules are ok for a beginner to kind of sense a starting point and then they must be forgotten and u gotta feel your own soul and produce your music from it, if your soul asks you for parallel fifths go for it, if it asks you for whatever even if that is seen today as a disaster, also go for it, thats what geniouses and real masters always did, they did whatever they felt like doing, regardless of the opinions and rules of their contemporaries

Jav





Hello all,

I've resumed my music classes and once again, they've told us to avoid using parallel fifths in our compositions. This philosophy has always baffled me because I really don't hear anything bad or wrong with parallel fifths. In fact, I have two compositions that I wrote specifically to demonstrate that parallel fifths don't sound bad. I think they can sound bad if you position them poorly, but then, any progression can sound bad if you position it poorly.

So, I've been wondering--for what reason are parallel fifths frowned upon? The best answer I've been able to come up with is that the relative strength of the fifth can make it sound like you're changing the tonality (i.e. the key) of the piece. Can any of you more experienced musicians offer some insight?

[javismiles]

adding to that

if we all always sticked to the rules, the rules would remain the same, we would remain doing the same things and nothing would evolve or change

its absurd to say that whatever combination will sound well or bad to all possible unique human ears, races, cultures places etc

reality is that whatever you produce is going to sound good or bad or whatever depending on the place, the time, the culture, the society, the prejudices, the opinions, even the time of day u listen to it etc, etc

yes, there are statistical combinations that sound better to most people or worse etc, etc, etc

but to continue evolving, to break new gound, to be bold, to be a creator and not just a follower, for that u gotta yes, accumulate lots of rules, saturate yourself with years of learning etc, etc, and then throw it all out and listen only to yourself and create just what your unique mind and body are asking you to create

and if it is parallel fifths from beginning to end, for gods sake, let it be parallel all the way ;)

;)





hi there,
see Debussy for example, he extensively used parallel fifths and also tritones in ways that according to the tradition would have been simply disastrous
For Debussy , parallel fifths , tritones etc had their own beauty and their own place

I guess the answer can be
everything is changing, the music that people make , like, enjoy, feel, produce, and rules are dead things, they live in the past, rules are ok for a beginner to kind of sense a starting point and then they must be forgotten and u gotta feel your own soul and produce your music from it, if your soul asks you for parallel fifths go for it, if it asks you for whatever even if that is seen today as a disaster, also go for it, thats what geniouses and real masters always did, they did whatever they felt like doing, regardless of the opinions and rules of their contemporaries

Jav

[LouisD]

The answer to "Why are parallel fifths (or 8ves) wrong?" is actually very simple. But as a "rule", it applies only to certain styles and has nothing to do with how beautiful Debussy made them soundhttp://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

If you are writing for independent voices (2, 3 or however many), parallel fifths and octaves will weaken the independence of those voices, ie, it will momentarily sound as if the voices "merged" . This made the voice leading confusing to the listener and was considered unacceptable in Bach's time. The reason for this lies in the makeup of the overtone series. 8ves and 5ths are strong in the first couple of overtones for each note.

Hopefully someone will have a more "academic" explanation...http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

kind regards

LouisD

[FredProgGH]

That's pretty academic :D :D

Weren't parrallel fifths one of the earliest forms of musical expression in chant, after a solo voice and then parallell octaves?? Maybe it's frowned upon because it represents lack of sophiistication due to being such an archaic sound.

Alan is right, for the last 30 years or more the open fifth has been the bedrock of most popular music- anything guitar driven in any event. Orchestral music can still use fifths a lot to evoke an Arabic or eastern feel...

Anyway, my attitude is if you like 'em, use 'em!!

[Trolls]

The answer to "Why are parallel fifths (or 8ves) wrong?" is actually very simple. But as a "rule", it applies only to certain styles and has nothing to do with how beautiful Debussy made them soundhttp://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

If you are writing for independent voices (2, 3 or however many), parallel fifths and octaves will weaken the independence of those voices, ie, it will momentarily sound as if the voices "merged" . This made the voice leading confusing to the listener and was considered unacceptable in Bach's time. The reason for this lies in the makeup of the overtone series. 8ves and 5ths are strong in the first couple of overtones for each note.

Hopefully someone will have a more "academic" explanation...http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

kind regards

LouisD

This is exactly what I teach in my Theory classes. Also, stylistically, in the common practice period (1600-1900) it was generally avoided. Probably in reaction in part to the over-use in organum of the middle-ages. Nowadays, it is not considered a bad practice, as long as the intent is not to imitate common practice music.

Regards,
Tim

[etincelles]

Tim,

Is it true that the augmented 4th was once considered a 'satanic' interval and was banned for that reason?

(Not that I have an inkling as to how such a ban could be enforced. :confused: )

Etincelles

[TheOne{]

I really should take real music lessons soon.....by coincidence I always see this thing where parallel fifths should be avoided, and I have no idea what they are :confused: In the first (http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?PID=462289&T=6735) music that I made someone commented that the use of parallel fifths was good in that context. So is that something like where f a and a# are played together? Or I am just sounding dumb?

[Stephanie Pray]

I may be a little naive, but the way that I look at it is that if you like it and it sounds good, why not? Rules are meant to be broken sometimes right? :)

[Garritan]

Tim,

Is it true that the augmented 4th was once considered a 'satanic' interval and was banned for that reason?

(Not that I have an inkling as to how such a ban could be enforced. :confused: )

Etincelles

Yes, the Augmented Fourth was once considered a 'satanic interval' or "Diabolus in musica" so called its dissonent non-harmonious sound. Tom's favorite interval http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif.


http://www.pigsnpoof.com/pigsrflyn/images/anigif/waynes/Wayne%27s%20Animated%20GIF%20Collection%20-%20Halloween%20-%20Monsters_files/devil7.gif

[Joseph Burrell]

I don't know really. I seem to gravitate to them for some reason. Go figure. I guess that's why everything I do sounds like poo. :p

Violins in parallel fifths - :(

Slayer in parallel fifths - :D

[lontas]

Wow, thanks for all the responses!

LouisD and Trolls -- The overtone series! Of course! I am familiar with medieval organum and polyphony, and it makes perfect sense to avoid consecutive fifths in this context. Especially when Pythagorean tuning was in use, I can see how the fifth (or octave) could have been perceived as an overtone rather than an independent voice.

Jav -- I totally agree with you about the use of rules in regards to expressing yourself musically. I generally disregard the "rules" when I compose, unless I am composing something for class. Sometimes really weird things can be made to sound good, when put in proper context.

TheOne -- I should clarify what a parallel fifth is. It refers to the practice of composing two consecutive open fifth intervals one right after the other. For example, one voice might sing a C to an E while another would sing a G to a B above it, causing two consecutive open fifths to occur.

Etincelles -- I believe the augmented 4th, or tritone, was indeed banned within the Catholic Church for a time. Gregorian Chant was designed from the ground up to be complementary to the holy nature of the Mass. As such, an interval of such dischord as the tritone was undesireable in this situation. Consonant intervals and harmonies were much more conductive to worship than dissonant intervals.

Thanks a bunch, guys!

[lontas]

Yes, the Augmented Fourth was once considered a 'satanic interval' or "Diabolus in musica" so called its dissonent non-harmonious sound. Tom's favorite interval http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif.


http://www.pigsnpoof.com/pigsrflyn/images/anigif/waynes/Wayne%27s%20Animated%20GIF%20Collection%20-%20Halloween%20-%20Monsters_files/devil7.gif



Gary -- Ha ha ha! I shall have to print this and present it to my music history professor. :D

[Trolls]

Tim,

Is it true that the augmented 4th was once considered a 'satanic' interval and was banned for that reason?

(Not that I have an inkling as to how such a ban could be enforced. :confused: )

Etincelles

Not really. Augmented 4ths and diminished 5ths have actually been common in tonal music, but must be dealt with carefully. The augmented 2nd was refered to as the "diabolous in musica" (Devil in music) simply because in it's tonal context it is difficult to sing. Many people think nowadays that because it is enharmonic to the minor third, and that minor thirds are common, that the augmented second shouldn't be that difficult to sing. However, in the 12th-19th century context, it was at the very least, tricky because it was so far out of the key. I'm sure a musicologist could give a better description. I would point out that while many textbooks today refer to the tritone as being the "satanic" interval, medieval music scholars were refering to the augmented second.

Best,
Tim

[Trolls]

I need to correct myself on my previous post: The aug. 4th was indeed the Devil. The augmented second would not have been encountered in the modes. I got it backwards. Sorry for the confussion, I've been spending the past 2 hours grading papers with a problem involving the Aug 4th. However, I should point out that by Bach, the diminished 5th was quite common, as was the aug 4h (but less so than dim. 5th). Many of the chorales have these intervals in them, usually hidden in the alto or tenor.

Tim

[etincelles]

[size=3]Yes, the Augmented Fourth was once considered the 'satanic interval' or "Diabolus in musica" so called its dissonent non-harmonious sound. Tom's favorite interval http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif.

]

Interesting. What an odd concept, especially considering the deployment of dissonance by Bach, arguably the master of sacred music. How on Earth did they enforce it? It does bring to mind rather comical scenes of priests listening very intently, then furiously crossing themselves and humming more celestial intervals to cancel the evil effects of "Diabolus in musica" :)

I use it quite a lot. Had I been around in those days, I suspect I would have been burned at the stake or exorcised :eek:

[FredProgGH]

Tim,

Is it true that the augmented 4th was once considered a 'satanic' interval and was banned for that reason?

(Not that I have an inkling as to how such a ban could be enforced. :confused: )

Etincelles

It was actually pretty easy to enforce at one time. First, someone would shout, "Witch!!!!!" or perhaps, "Demon!!!! Then they tied you to something and set you on fire.

[FredProgGH]

Interesting. What an odd concept, especially considering the deployment of dissonance by Bach, arguably the master of sacred music. How on Earth did they enforce it? It does bring to mind rather comical scenes of priests listening very intently, then furiously crossing themselves and humming more celestial intervals to cancel the evil effects of "Diabolus in musica" :)

I use it quite a lot. Had I been around in those days, I suspect I would have been burned at the stake or exorcised :eek:

:D You just beat me. Bach got away with it because he was a bit later, and you could do it as a passing tone- it went by before anyone noticed!

[etincelles]

I need to correct myself on my previous post: The aug. 4th was indeed the Devil. The augmented second would not have been encountered in the modes. I got it backwards. Sorry for the confussion, I've been spending the past 2 hours grading papers with a problem involving the Aug 4th. However, I should point out that by Bach, the diminished 5th was quite common, as was the aug 4h (but less so than dim. 5th). Many of the chorales have these intervals in them, usually hidden in the alto or tenor.

Tim

Ah, many thanks Tim, that explains it and my comment about Bach below. When you say hidden in the alto or tenor, was that on musical grounds, or was that Bach being cheeky?

[stmain]

I really don't hear anything bad or wrong with parallel fifths. In fact, I have two compositions that I wrote specifically to demonstrate that parallel fifths don't sound bad. I think they can sound bad if you position them poorly, but then, any progression can sound bad if you position it poorly.

I was also raised to NEVER write parallels, and I break the rule all the time! However, I will say this: occasionally review some of my students' composition-homework, I'm amazed how bad INADVERTENT parallel 5ths sound. Maybe it's just the result of our historical associations with it. If you want to test this, go to the piano and play the opening accompaniment to "heart and soul" (you know, bump-ba-dump-ba bump-ba-dump-ba -- the chordal thing in C major that every kid learns to hammer out). The parallel motion in the right hand triads sounds really amateurish, right? I find that if I'm not careful with handling parallels, the same effect can happen.

[etincelles]

It was actually pretty easy to enforce at one time. First, someone would shout, "Witch!!!!!" or perhaps, "Demon!!!! Then they tied you to something and set you on fire.

:D That was uncanny timing!

I guess if you were a consistent offender and they needed to set an example, they might also have tied you to a tree and chanted divine thirds at you until you melted :)

[FredProgGH]

:D That was uncanny timing!



Hmmm... yes... that, or you're a WITCH!!!!!
(goes to find matches)

:D :D

[JonFairhurst]

I've found that it's fine to use a stream of parallel fifths with tightly linked parts. It's when you're writing independent lines that come together for occasional parallel fifths or octaves that you destroy the independence of the voices.

For instance, many organs have a huge overtone a 12th (octave + 5th) above the tonic. Every note you play on a B3 essentially has a strong parallel 5th! Same thing for power chords on an electric guitar. Don't think of these situations as counterpoint. They're not. The fifths (or 8ths or 12ths) simply add harmonics or coloration to the tonic.

Once you go to independent lines, stay clear of parallel 5ths/8ths/12ths etc. Those randomly simplify your counterpoint. This action also randomly colors/uncolors the tonic note.

I think it's also very important for multiple players to be very careful to tightly synchronize their playing for dependent lines, like linked 5ths. We don't want to hear independent voices. We want to hear a single line with overtones. Power chords do this naturally. It's harder to do with gregorian chant.

This is another interesting application for morphing technology. One could potentially merge a viola and flute playing parallel lines - while putting the notes exactly in phase. This would create a single complex instrument, rather than two independent ones.

Anyway, parallel fifths are fine - but not when placed randomly in independent musical lines.

-JF

[KevinKauai]

ALL musical "rules" are made to be BROKEN -- otherwise, we all just write music that conforms and begins to all sound like Tchaikovsky (not that there's anything wrong with Tchaikovsky -- but it IS late 19th century, ya know).

True "modernists" in *any* era figure out innovative ways to make their musical expressions works -- and the rules matter as much as the speed laws on the New Jersey Turnpike.

My $0.02 ... KevinKauai :)

[FredProgGH]

Jon, that sounds like a really good analysis- though I'd like to think there are still times when one would find they can break the rule and have pleasing results.

[JonFairhurst]

No doubt about the rules being breakable. No one ever stopped Cream in the middle of a jam to complain that their improvised counterpoint stumbled upon some parallel fifths or other diabolical sonic mischief. :)

In another thread I posted about the Hyperstring Trilogy. It was awsome, yet I had the feeling that everything that I heard was a continuum of broken rules.

The funny thing is that if you're writing a dissonant 12-tone piece, it's consonants and sweet harmonies that tend to be the rule breakers. I guess it all depends on the context.

-JF

[jesshmusic]

In school you are learning common practice harmony first. That is the same thing that has been around for 300 years, so no parallel fifths. If you study counterpoint it is explained. I do agree that unintended parallel harmonies (esp. fifths, fourths and octaves) can ruin the independence of the voices. On the other hand it is very good to create color. Copland used them a lot. So did many others back to the Impressionists. Ravel would build his orchestrations on the natural harmonics.. In other words the octave, fifth, fourth, third, major second, etc. Just like a brass instrument. Try it. Play a chord on a piano built as such: C3, C4, G4, C5, E5, F#5 (If you have an extra finger). Then move it parallel to this chord: D3, D4, A4, D5, F#5, G#5. If done properly it almost becomes one voice with a unique sound. Listen to Debussy's Claire de Lune. When he has independent voices, he avoids parallel fifths, but when the voices play together, he has tons.

I'll tell you this. In college, it is wisest to learn the theory as it is taught because it will make you a better musician. Best to learn the rules well before breaking them. Even Schoenberg was a master composer of common practice harmony before he expiremented with twelve tone. ;)

[jesshmusic]

[size=3]Yes, the Augmented Fourth was once considered a 'satanic interval' or "Diabolus in musica" so called its dissonent non-harmonious sound. Tom's favorite interval http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif.


BTW Even Paul Hindemith considered the 5dim the most dissonant interval. In his twelve note tonal counterpoint rules, it is last in the pecking order. He considered it more dissonant than the minor second. As do I. It really sticks out and cries out to be resolved....except in the blues. ;)

[Ouch that hurts]

The answer to "Why are parallel fifths (or 8ves) wrong?" is actually very simple. But as a "rule", it applies only to certain styles and has nothing to do with how beautiful Debussy made them soundhttp://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

If you are writing for independent voices (2, 3 or however many), parallel fifths and octaves will weaken the independence of those voices, ie, it will momentarily sound as if the voices "merged" . This made the voice leading confusing to the listener and was considered unacceptable in Bach's time. The reason for this lies in the makeup of the overtone series. 8ves and 5ths are strong in the first couple of overtones for each note.

Hopefully someone will have a more "academic" explanation...http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

kind regards

LouisD

Thank God. I only wish more theory teachers were aware of how simple this actually is.

Everybody here goes on about "breaking the rules", but nobody seems to have the slightest idea of WHY the rules were there in the first place, and thus under what circumstances it's a good idea to break them. It's like a wild swinging between two extremes - blind adherence to a law you have no understanding of on the one hand, and total anarchy on the other.

Parallel fifths are not really "rules", they're principles of how to work in order to achieve certain things. Louis's right on the button that the essence of this principle is independence of voices.

To those who say they don't matter, try this: Read slowly from something like a Bach two-part invention, or improvise yourself, a two-part passage in which everything moves the classic way, in thirds, sixths and some individual octaves and fifths using contrary motion, with dissonanced resolved the proper way. Then throw in a few parallel fifths and octaves. I guarantee they will stick out like dogs' balls. I know because I've done this with groups of teenage students, and every one, no matter how cloth-eared, shot up their hand when I played them and could hear that the independence of voices had collapsed.

And everything from Bach to late Romanticism is an elaboration of the idea of independent voices. The stricture against parallels was observed during this period with astounding consistency - you can't tell me it's not important (for this style). Sure there are exceptions, but they are so few and far between (and usually explainable) that the principle definitely holds.

One important note is that when Beethoven or Schubert has a violin melody with a flute doubling an octave higher, this is NOT parallel octaves. Many people think this is proof that the rule is worthless, but it isn't, for the simple reason that these are not INDEPENDENT parts. The composer is obviously not trying to make you hear a violin part and a separate flute part interacting with it, he's trying to make you here a single part with a violin/flute sonority.

And that's the key to what Debussy did, in those piano pieces and things with big fistfulls of parallels. He wasn't writing independent parts, he was writing what was essentially monophony, but using chords under each note as a purely colouring device. That's why a lot of Debussy sounds so similar to medieval music.

Same goes for rock power chords. You don't hear the individual lines in a heavy rock power chord progression as interacting with each other, you hear a single monolithic entity. So, questions of parallels don't apply. Apart from which rock, as an improvised style is completely different anyway, and the whole issue of counterpoint is bound to be much looser.

Now I don't do film music, but given how much of it seems derived from Romanticism, and true (if very chromatic) functional harmony, I'd think undertanding the place of parallels in this is pretty crucial.

[Trolls]

Ah, many thanks Tim, that explains it and my comment about Bach below. When you say hidden in the alto or tenor, was that on musical grounds, or was that Bach being cheeky?

I see it more as a matter of what were the most important voices. The ear is drawn to the Soprano and Bass, so you always made sure that the leading tone and the chord seventh always resolve properly in these voices. The ear is not as drawn to the alto and tenor lines, so if you have a diminished fifth in the alto line, it doesn't stand out. Try this at the piano where you write a chorale and put a tri-tone in an inner voice (making sure it resolves properly). Then flip that voice with the soprano. The chorale now sound awkward because the soprano doesn't go where it is expected to go.

I should point out that back on the subject of parallel fifths, Bach does them on occasion, but they do not predominate. The purpose of studying the "rules" (I prefer guidelines) is to study the overall norm. One should also keep in mind that you can't compare Debussy and Bach, or even Tchaik and Bach, since they are so stylistically different. What Debussy did was in direct contradition to Bach, his way of creating a new sound. However, he was thrown out of school for his ideas!

I don't know if any of this helps. It's kinda early to be thinking this hard about this. Class isn't until noon.

Regards,
Tim

[etincelles]

I see it more as a matter of what were the most important voices. The ear is drawn to the Soprano and Bass, so you always made sure that the leading tone and the chord seventh always resolve properly in these voices. The ear is not as drawn to the alto and tenor lines, so if you have a diminished fifth in the alto line, it doesn't stand out. Try this at the piano where you write a chorale and put a tri-tone in an inner voice (making sure it resolves properly). Then flip that voice with the soprano. The chorale now sound awkward because the soprano doesn't go where it is expected to go.

I should point out that back on the subject of parallel fifths, Bach does them on occasion, but they do not predominate. The purpose of studying the "rules" (I prefer guidelines) is to study the overall norm. One should also keep in mind that you can't compare Debussy and Bach, or even Tchaik and Bach, since they are so stylistically different. What Debussy did was in direct contradition to Bach, his way of creating a new sound. However, he was thrown out of school for his ideas!

I don't know if any of this helps. It's kinda early to be thinking this hard about this. Class isn't until noon.

Regards,
Tim


Thanks again Tim, you provide an interesting insight.

The Crucifixus from Bach's B Minor mass contains some rather alarming harmony, particularly leading into bar 17. With reference to what you've said here, I suspect it seems jarring because you simply don't expect it?

[Trolls]

Thanks again Tim, you provide an interesting insight.

The Crucifixus from Bach's B Minor mass contains some rather alarming harmony, particularly leading into bar 17. With reference to what you've said here, I suspect it seems jarring because you simply don't expect it?

There are a number of augmented seconds that are meant as "word painting," emphasizing, apparently, the pain of Christ having 6 inch spikes driven through his hands. In the passage you are talking about there are several chordal shifts from B major (V/iv) to B-minor to e major (V/VII) to e-minor, which gives an unsettled feeling, leaving the listener to question what key is te section really in. The secondary dominants that I label are probably not all that correct in the context of listening. They do not resolve where the ear expects them to. The voice-leading is sublime, and with the exception of the aug. 2nd's in 14-16, exactly what you would expect from Bach. Schenkerians love this type of piece, since the voice-leading works so beautiful, but the harmonic progression doesn't follow what we have been taught to expect. What makes it sound jarring is the descending bass line and non-functional harmony. The tonal ambiguity here is another form of word-painting.

As an aside - I really love using this piece in theory class because it shows that even Bach doesn't always follow the "rules," and that the term "rules" is really too strict. I may have to sequence this over the summer so I can use it in class next fall. This is , afterall, one of the reasons I bought GPO.

Best,
Tim

[trentpmcd]

Kind of timely – last night I was doing some harmony exercises (re-reading Schoenberg’s Harmony book) and playing them out on the piano. Suddenly one of my exercises sounded terrible – sure enough, I missed a parallel octave. Later another one stood out – a parallel fifth. They sounded awful! At least in that context…

Anyone who has listened to any of the St. George and the Dragon that I’ve posted (too many times to count) will know I have nothing against parallel fifths or octaves – that is, parallel fifths or octaves in the right context. In the wrong context they stand out.

In the Schoenberg book I am going through he gives some reasons against parallel fifths and octaves and then states his reasons why he thinks those arguments are wrong or exaggerated. He ends by saying the student needs to follow the rules so they can learn the historical way of doing things. As an aside in a footnote he admits to hearing problems with parallels. One thing that interests me, given his very scientific viewpoint, is that he never argues for the avoidance of parallels on the grounds of the harmonic series – they have fewer overtones that clash and so sound less rich and a little hollow or empty. Of course a composer may want the less rich sound. Any note should be chosen for its contribution to the music, not to follow some rule.

I think the rules of harmony, etc., are like the rules of grammar and spelling. They may help the communication but are not absolutely necessary. How would poetry sound if poets followed strict grammar rules? And yet I bet most poets know the rules better than you or I.

[etincelles]

I think the rules of harmony, etc., are like the rules of grammar and spelling. They may help the communication but are not absolutely necessary. How would poetry sound if poets followed strict grammar rules? And yet I bet most poets know the rules better than you or I.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. It struck me that the guidelines concerning parallel fifths and octaves are rather akin to the rules concerning use of passive voice in prose, for example. A general convention, but can often be skilfully ignored to good effect (that was not such an instance I hasten to add :) )

Comparing music as a language with writing and speech, the latter are certainly more earthbound since they are our first means of communication. Because of this, I believe a basic set of steadfast rules are needed for the sake of universality, and even the most avante-garde of writers and poets cannot deviate from these without generating complete gibberish.

For music, where the adjudicator is the subjective human ear rather than our innate objective sense of linguistic accuracy, I suppose anything goes and if it doesn't, you have a hard time arguing it to be right or wrong other than by reference to what's gone before.

[thesoundsmith]

I believe the augmented 4th, or tritone, was indeed banned within the Catholic Church for a time. Gregorian Chant was designed from the ground up to be complementary to the holy nature of the Mass. As such, an interval of such dischord as the tritone was undesireable in this situation. Consonant intervals and harmonies were much more conductive to worship than dissonant intervals.
The Catholic church went farther than that, and much more recently - when the Hammond organ was created, it was banned from Catholic churches because it didn't conform exactly the 'proper' temperament intervals. The math of the tonewheels made it not exactly on pitch, several lnotes are off by a few cents. This was enough to earn the displeasure of the Vatican (besides it put a lot of italian pipe organ manufacturers on the defensive, being so much cheaper...).

And while I'm a definite believer in parallel fifths, I'm more likely to use serial fifths - glug, glug... :p

[Styxx]

http://www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/awp/edaw.1.html

here is an interesting read on the use of parallel fifths in the Beatles music.

[stevegoers]

Etincelles -- I believe the augmented 4th, or tritone, was indeed banned within the Catholic Church for a time. Gregorian Chant was designed from the ground up to be complementary to the holy nature of the Mass. As such, an interval of such dischord as the tritone was undesireable in this situation. Consonant intervals and harmonies were much more conductive to worship than dissonant intervals.


I thought that the "devil's interval" was a result of the temperaments of the scales used by the early church that put the fifth (and third, in just temperament) in perfect tune with the tonic but resulted in other tones of the scale being wildly out of tune. In pythagorean and just temperaments, the tritone was so wildly and gratingly out of tune that it was called the devil's interval. Once equal temperament, that divided the octave into twelve equal parts, became more widely used, the tritone lost much of its diabolical nature.

[southportJim]

If you are writing for independent voices (2, 3 or however many), parallel fifths and octaves will weaken the independence of those voices, ie, it will momentarily sound as if the voices "merged" .

Hopefully someone will have a more "academic" explanation...


That's about as "academic" as you need to get...and exactly what I remember from theory classes "way back when".

I personally have always liked the sound of parallel 5ths and 4ths, but then again I prefer medieval organum to Palestrina, so who knows? Unless you are specifically trying to imitate an historical style in a realistic manner, I see no problem with them...as someone here said "if it sounds good, it is good!".

[Christopher Duncan]

Rules? There's rules???

Personally, I always figured them to be more like guidelines. But then, I own a guitar and an amp that goes to 11.

And a copy of Pirates of the Carribean, of course. :)

[trentpmcd]

Rules? There's rules???

Personally, I always figured them to be more like guidelines. But then, I own a guitar and an amp that goes to 11.

And a copy of Pirates of the Carribean, of course. :)
So why don't they just renumber it so it goes up to 10?

blank stare

Well mine goes to 11, now doesn't it?

… and a copy of Spinal Tap, I hope. :D

[Christopher Duncan]

Actually, as an old bass player once observed and brought to my attention, my Marshall goes to 20. True story. :)

[Daag Nabbott]

Actually, as an old bass player once observed and brought to my attention, my Marshall goes to 20. True story. :)
Whooaaa, dude!
That means it's twice as loud!!

[Christopher Duncan]

Anything worth doing is worth doing to extremes.

[dewdman42]

What's wrong with parallel 5ths? Nothing, unless you're trying to get an A in your harmony or counterpoint class..

[Hans510]

Gonna add my two cents here. I think one of the reasons the whole rule thing is confusing to us is that we live in the 21st century. Untill the early to mid 20th century composers didn't care about rules, they wrote what sounded good to them. Theoriticians came after them and tried to explain and teach the music so they came up with these rules. Hence these rules work to help us understand the music. Then came Schoenberg, Berg, Webern and they started making the rules before they wrote the music and a school of thought developed that the rules preceeded the music, not visa versa. We are still influenced by this thought that rules preceed music and it's very hard to separate our thought processes from this thinking. Unless you're writing serial music (which is kinda by defination, rules before music) the rules should only be something you learn to speed up the process by which you learn the greater goal of making good music. You can understand Bach's music quicker if you start with the rules of his time and then learn how he works in and out of those rules.

[kitekrazy]

What's wrong with parallel 5ths? Nothing, unless you're trying to get an A in your harmony or counterpoint class..

That's basically it. They just want to learn traditional theory first so then you can break the rules better in 20th century theory.

[Trolls]

That's basically it. They just want to learn traditional theory first so then you can break the rules better in 20th century theory.
Actually, Theory is about understanding music of the past so as to enhance performance. This idea that composers need theory to compose is a long standing fallacy that started in the 19th century. Composers are expected to know their theory to have a more complete understanding of music written previously. It's a known fact that Rameau's theories about analysis had no effect on how Bach composed, as Rameau only published his Treatise on Harmony late in Bach's life. Bach understood the hierarchies in tonal music, but never quantified it with an analysis of his work. That was left for others to do.

There is no "chicken or the egg" question here. Analysis comes after composition, not before. In fact, sometimes not for a long time after the compostion. There is still no quantifiable analytic technique for Debussy. And the techniques for the post tonal world are woefully inadaquate. Even Allen Forte, who came up with set theory, admits that the system does little to explain the music, and is subject to the whim of the theorist doing the analysis.

I always remember what one of my composition teachers told me: "Have a solid understanding of the music of the past, but don't let it dictate your future." In other words, write what you want, and don't worry about some "rule" that is 100 years out of date. That's for the past. Composition is not about following or breaking "rules."

Sorry, didn't mean for this to turn into a rant.

Tim

[FredProgGH]

This was enough to earn the displeasure of the Vatican (besides it put a lot of italian pipe organ manufacturers on the defensive, being so much cheaper...).


Uh... "besides"??? The comspiracy buff in me smells something... :D :D

[jesshmusic]

Theory does help one understand the process of composition much better, I believe. That would be why a lot of composition teachers require at least some theory background as a prerequisite.

[Francesco]

My two cents:

parallel fifth, as in the classical theory, were avoided because they reminds orientals - indians - chinese harmony. It was not allowed so in the "pure" and "only" harmony of the past centuries, which aim to trace a distinct division-line by the "non-redempted" middle-east peoples ...However also in the classical harmony there are some excpetions (for ex.: you can do a parallel fifth if one of the lines goes by half tone as Db-G to D-A).
Also if you look at Beehtoven (the symphonies) or Puccini (Madame Butterfly) you can see a lots of fifths and octaves.

Moreover the principal concept in composition courses say:
" everything is proibited, but everything is allowed when you want to obtain a certain effect "
So I think that it's ok to know the rules (you never know...maybe one day someone should ask you for a Madrigal!), but this not means that you have always to apply them.
Hope this helps
Francesco

[GigaLove]

@lontas: could it perhaps be that you have slightly misinterpretated something? I do not think that the person who talked about fifths has meant it in that absolute way. there is nothing wrong with any interval. they only have different effects in different contexts. a fifth is indeed a kind of "neutral" . think of overtones. if a fifth oscillates along it is not really noticable..it just adds a kind of colour.
think of a normal c major scale. if you accompany it with a third it will sound "nice". not spectacular...but quite comfortable. now accompany it with a fith and it will sound pretty unsubstantial.
that's what they could perhaps have meant.

------------------

and concerning some other posted opinions here about music theory: no, music theory was not invented to torture you and limit your creativity. harmonics is a mirror of nature, of physics. that's the way sound behaves, oscillates and splits up....at least in our universe. just for the case that you might be from a parallel universe...ok..then you can use other rules.
compostiton theory is handcraft. you learn how to create styles and moods with different tools. based on experiences. it's a basis which you should know before you want to leave it.
why is it necessary to learn it before you discard it? imagine a trained piano player who playes an atonal improvisation. if he is gifted for that style his play might sound quite exciting. an interplay of fellowing and leaving the path.
now imagine a person who did not learn to play the piano and is trying out the keyboard. how will this sound? yes, atonal. but probably simple chaotic and uninteresting.

[trentpmcd]

In the last year I’ve worked through, read or skimmed 5 books on Harmony. Every one of them said in one way or another that music theory is for analyzing existing works, not creating new ones.

That being said, it is also true that knowing the theory gives us a jump start so we don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time we do something.

For instance, before working on theory my modulations (when I bothered to change keys) sounded very clumsy. Hopefully they are sounding better because of the new tools I have to deal with them.

I’m going to paraphrase a short section from Scheonberg’s book on Harmony – A really gifted student of composition may be able to come up with all of the right solutions on his/her own, but most of us need a little guidance, even if it just to save us time in getting to the places we want to be and learning the tricks we want to know.

I like Schoenberg’s method of teaching theory much more than any other I have seen, including Piston.

I think of theory as a tool set we can use or ignore as we choose. Having that tool set gives us that option – if you don’t have it, you can’t use it. Parallel fifths and octaves have a particular sound. Sometimes I want that sound, sometimes I want to avoid it.

Since I am supposed to be in control of my composition, the one thing I do not want is to leave it to chance – every note should be there for a reason – if there is no reason, that instrument should have a rest.

[GigaLove]

..... every note should be there for a reason .....

very well said!

sometimes it is a painful procedure to detect that reason or that note (in that case music theory is a usable tool)....and sometimes we are kissed by the muse and the note writes itself and contains the reason in itself.

[Andrew Koenig]

Using parallel fifths is like using words such as "thee" and "thine" -- they are an integral part of the style of a certain time but are out of place elsewhere.

Musical languages change. Beethoven's first symphony begins with a dominant chord--something that would have been unheard of fifty years earlier. The first time I heard the music for West Side Story (in junior high school, if I remember right), I could not understand how anyone could listen to music that dissonant.

At some point, composers must have decided that parallel fifths made their music sound archaic and started to avoid them.

[Ken-P]

1) Parallel fifths (or //8th and hidden 5th and 8th) tend to prevent voices (musical lines) from being independent from each other.
2) Independence of each voice is very important in polyphonic music.

[Daag Nabbott]

...<edit>....
So I think that it's ok to know the rules (you never know...maybe one day someone should ask you for a Madrigal!), ...<edit>...
I think that's a very important point, particularly for composers who do "work-for-hire". Your project's producer/director or whatever my ask of you to emulate styles belonging to a specific era or culture. Being familiar with the rules of theory as it applies to the intended effect of the project would be imperative.
But when you are given freedom to "go your own way", or just for art's sake, then anything goes.

[joetabby]

So I think that it's ok to know the rules (you never know...maybe one day someone should ask you for a Madrigal!), but this not means that you have always to apply them.

It's difficult to have fun "breaking the rules," . . .if you just don't know them. ;) .

Joe Tabby

[lee_merrill]

Later another one stood out – a parallel fifth. They sounded awful! At least in that context…

I agree! I think that is why parallel fifths were frowned upon then, because they usually just sound bad, in the type of music where harmonious sounds were being attempted.

Sometimes they don't sound bad, even in harmonious compositions, then (Bach did, as folks noted) they got used.

Now if you're not trying to compose harmonious sounds, parallel fifths will no doubt move to the head of the class...

Regards,
Lee

[Edi]

Yes, the Augmented Fourth was once considered a 'satanic interval' or "Diabolus in musica" so called its dissonent non-harmonious sound. Tom's favorite interval http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif.


http://www.pigsnpoof.com/pigsrflyn/images/anigif/waynes/Wayne%27s%20Animated%20GIF%20Collection%20-%20Halloween%20-%20Monsters_files/devil7.gif


Aah, that must be why in the nineteenth century it mostly hid out as the diminished fifth... and by the way, good for Tom, without whom I would often feel like a lost soul around here! :)

[jesshmusic]

By the 19th century that myth was busted. ;) If you read Gradus ad Parnasum by Fux, he mentions the diminished fifth interval and how it should never be used. He also discusses the reasons behind not writing parallel fifths or octaves. The interval of a fourth was considered a disonance then.

I personally think that even in modern music the parallel harmonies are bad unless a purposeful effect is desired. But if contrapunal writing is being used an accidental parallel can be bad. It will stick out like a sore thumb and make the voices lose their independence. Even too many parallel thirds can be bad. Parallel seconds are a little strange and i avoid them about the same that I avoid fifths. If you want to hear how I use parallel fifths, I have a section that has a lot of them (and some fourths) in the second movement of my Woodwind Quartet (http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30744). They are pretty obvious when they happen. :) I also use them late in the piece to add some umph to a french horn melody...purely color. It's like mixing envelopes on a synth. I guess it would be a "French Clarinet"

[Iwan Roth]

Yes, the Augmented Fourth was once considered a 'satanic interval' or "Diabolus in musica" so called its dissonent non-harmonious sound. Tom's favorite interval http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif.


Gary,
your post did inspire me to write this little piano piece:
http://www.iwanroth-sax.com/sounds/Tri-Tom-us%20.mp3
The piano is of course GPO and the FX is made with "Spektral Delay" from NI. Nothing for people which do not like tritonus, because of apart a few octaves, there is not a single chord which does not contain the "satanic interval"
It is called "TRI-TOM-US".....Hi Tom ;)
Iwan

http://www.pigsnpoof.com/pigsrflyn/images/anigif/waynes/Wayne%27s%20Animated%20GIF%20Collection%20-%20Halloween%20-%20Monsters_files/devil7.gif

I think this must be me...... :confused:

[lontas]

Thank you all so much for the very interesting discussion! I think I've learned more from this thread than from a year's worth of music classes.

GigaLove -- I don't think I've misinterpreted the teacher. Believe it or not, my school teaches that parallels are ABSOLUTELY to be avoided. Homework handed in gets a letter grade docked for having a single parallel fifth or octave. But they have never told us WHY, which is what sparked my question here in the first place. It seems a little odd to teach an absolute without ever backing it up with reasoning.

I've been composing long before I entered college, and only then was I subjected to all these "rules". It's nice to know the characteristics of the baroque style... but it would be real nice if they would at least acknowledge the existence of those other styles, too. :confused: