Dominant Chords, Doublings of Active Tones, Voice-Leading, etc.

[Jonny Lost]

I hope you don't mind if I jump ahead a little but I read something in RK's book that has puzzled me. He states that the bass of a dominant chord should never be doubled in any of the upper parts. He adds that this applies to other chords of the seventh and diminished chords also . Can you explain the reasoning behind this rule? Thank you very much!!!Ron,

There are several reasons why this rule applies. The main reason is that is causes the chord to become unstable. Let me explain. Let's say that you have a C7 chord (CEGBb) and you've decided that it wants to go to a tonic (we'll say F Major).

The best way to look at this is to imagine it at a cadence point. The phrase is passing along and ends with a V7-I or authentic cadence. If you write the C7 as a root chord (CEGBb) that moves to F major (FAC), the cadence is going to sound more stable. The root movement C-F (5th or 4th depending on direction) is extremely strong and sounds "final".

In common part writing rules, the root C is most likely to be doubled. It gives the chord more stability because it reinforces the root and makes it stick out.

If you have a second inversion chord (BbCEG) and you try to double the root (Bb), the plagal movement, or "Amen", is less powerful. The stability is lessened because it briefly makes the Bb the pitch center or tonic.

It leads to inproper part writing (ie. parrallel octaves, direct fifths or octaves)

You also have to take into account the context in which this was written. The russians were busy trying to please a regime that disliked unorginazation. To their ears, the incorrect doubling would sound unorganized.

In todays society, where tonality has lost it's monopoly on music, it usually sounds just fine.

I hope this helps answer your question. If you have anymore or some follow up, please feel free to let me know. Also, if anyone else has any comments, corrections or question, let me know.

Good luck and keep writing,
Jonny
<!-- / message --> <!-- sig --> __________________
www.jonnylostinc.com (http://www.jonnylostinc.com)

""Even at 6:00 in the mornin', that boy ain't right!!" - Hank Hill

[Ron St. Germain]

Sorry, make that inverted dominant chord. Same for other inverted 7th chords

[Ron St. Germain]

Thanks! That helped answer my question. Good thing I'm up on my harmony so I can follow you. Whew!!!

It's extremely valuable to have someone with your knowledge here and I really appreciate it. Thanks!!

[belkina]

I'd like to qualify this answer a bit.

RK's rule about not doubling the 7th in the bass is one example of a larger principle: Some notes, e.g. 7ths and leading tones, have strong tendancies to resolve in specific ways (call them "active tones") and others are more neutral. Doublings of active tones in general need careful handling because they create strong colors. Reinforcing them with octaves makes them even more noticeable. Also there is the problem of resolution: one of the doublings is likely to go the "wrong" way, to avoid awkward, momentary parallel octaves.

When in the bass, a seventh, a leading tone, or any active tone doubled in the upper parts is particularly noticeable, simply because the octave doublings of fundamentals in the low register reinforce that note even more strongly, and can distort the chord's balance.

Obviously this applies to tonal harmony, and needs re-thinking in non-tonal contexts.

Btw: Bb,C,E,G is the THIRD inversion, not the second inversion of the chord.

Alan Belkin

Ron,


There are several reasons why this rule applies. The main reason is that is causes the chord to become unstable. Let me explain. Let's say that you have a C7 chord (CEGBb) and you've decided that it wants to go to a tonic (we'll say F Major).

The best way to look at this is to imagine it at a cadence point. The phrase is passing along and ends with a V7-I or authentic cadence. If you write the C7 as a root chord (CEGBb) that moves to F major (FAC), the cadence is going to sound more stable. The root movement C-F (5th or 4th depending on direction) is extremely strong and sounds "final".

In common part writing rules, the root C is most likely to be doubled. It gives the chord more stability because it reinforces the root and makes it stick out.

If you have a second inversion chord (BbCEG) and you try to double the root (Bb), the plagal movement, or "Amen", is less powerful. The stability is lessened because it briefly makes the Bb the pitch center or tonic.

It leads to inproper part writing (ie. parrallel octaves, direct fifths or octaves)

You also have to take into account the context in which this was written. The russians were busy trying to please a regime that disliked unorginazation. To their ears, the incorrect doubling would sound unorganized.

In todays society, where tonality has lost it's monopoly on music, it usually sounds just fine.


I hope this helps answer your question. If you have anymore or some follow up, please feel free to let me know. Also, if anyone else has any comments, corrections or question, let me know.


Good luck and keep writing,
Jonny

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Hey, guys,

I have enjoyed checking out what has been done in this section. It's nice to see how the text which once tortured my poor young soul has been expanded and illustrated by so many examples and annotations.

I notice you're talking about voice leading, and we have had numerous discussions about it here over the years. It is sometimes hard for people to grasp why these arbitrary "rules" have any meaning, and the explanations that Jonny and Alan have provided are very good.

I have a more general explanation that may also be helpful.

When you read any of the "rules" of voice leading, they can seem out of touch with what you have heard in film scores or some of the other musical applications we are exposed to on a daily basis.

That's because their basis is drawn from the evolution of diatonic music...that which is designed around the gravitational force of the traditional western scales and modes. There is no doubt that all of the common voice leading and doubling rules are valid. They come from years of highest and best practice, and were formed as a result of what "worked," rather than being arbitrarily applied.

HOWEVER...

It's important to note that even very "tonal sounding" music may not be Diatonic in nature. And that, I think, is where the disconnect occurs...when we hear things that sound "tonal," but they are not following the traditional ruleset.

Here is how I typically explain the way to approach voice-leading rules:

Say your wife walks into the room wearing a new outfit. She asks you, "Does this look good on me?"

What is the right answer?

YES, of course. This is the highest and best answer. It is the answer that men have relied upon since the dawn of civilization, in order to keep the love flowing.

So, can you break that rule?

Of course, but only if you have an overwhelmingly better experimental choice:

"Baby, I don't think that outfit looks good on you..."

"WHAT?" (tears forming in corners of eyes)

"No, that outfit looks AMAZING on you!!!"

See, you have broken the rule, but you have managed through your artistic cunning to increase the level of tension, then resolve it to even greater success by taking a calculated risk.

This is how voice leading rules work, especially in modern music. By ignoring highest and best practices derived from the history of western music, you take a gamble on destabilizing the gravitational flow...therefore engaging risk...in order to utilize the resulting instability to even greater effect.

The simple rule, then, is that the traditional voice leading rules will keep you safe, and keep your musical thoughts flowing. Break them only with extreme intention, and no one will ever have a negative thing to say about the results. But if you DON'T break them with boldness of intention, and the results are merely a destabilized line with no saving virtue, then people will merely say, "That's poor voice leading."

[Ron St. Germain]

Since Professor Belkin mentioned parallel octaves, I'd like to follow up on that with a question. It seems that parallel octaves are used quite often in the symphony---An oboe an octave below a flute or a trumpet in octaves to lend power and so on. It seems octaves are premissable sometimes, but not others. Can you explain the difference?

[falcon1]

Since Professor Belkin mentioned parallel octaves, I'd like to follow up on that with a question. It seems that parallel octaves are used quite often in the symphony---An oboe an octave below a flute or a trumpet in octaves to lend power and so on. It seems octaves are premissable sometimes, but not others. Can you explain the difference? I'm not Belkin but will answer this one anyway. :)

When we talk about parallel octaves in voice-leading, we are looking at "real" parts.

See following image (Brahms 4th symphony 1st mov. bar 21-24)...

http://www.falcon-creations.com/images/Brahms_symph4_ex_rParts.gif

The doubling, for example, of fl, kl and fg are just to reinforce the 1st part (sopran) of 4-part harmony. As you can see there are no parallels in the real-parts (under the orchestrated version).

So parallels in real-parts are still quite no no even today, but as doubling tool they are exellent. :)

Hope this was an clear answer. :)

[Jonny Lost]

Btw: Bb,C,E,G is the THIRD inversion, not the second inversion of the chord.

Alan Belkin


True, stupid seventh chord inversions!! :D

I stand corrected!


Jonny

[dalek3]

Since Professor Belkin mentioned parallel octaves, I'd like to follow up on that with a question. It seems that parallel octaves are used quite often in the symphony---An oboe an octave below a flute or a trumpet in octaves to lend power and so on. It seems octaves are premissable sometimes, but not others. Can you explain the difference?

This is how I understand it myself as a music student with the disclaimer that I might be explaining incorrectly given that I am still learning:

David Huron in his paper "Music Perception" wrote:

Tonal Fusion Principle. The perceptual independence of concurrent tones is weakened when their pitch relations promote tonal fusion. Intervals that promote tonal fusion include (in decreasing order): unisons, octaves, perfect fifths, ... Where the goal is the perceptual independence of concurrent sounds, intervals ought to be shunned in direct proportion to the degree to which they promote tonal fusion.

In other words, parallel unisions, octaves, and 5ths cause two voices to seem as one in the mind of the listener.

If two voices are meant to be independant from each other, and move independantly (i.e. no tonal fusion), they should move independantly for their entire existance (i.e. they should never have parallel unisions, octaves, 5ths).

If two voices are supposed to be dependant and "tonally fuse" together (done for orchestration purposes to make a voice stand out more), then they should move in parallel unisons, octaves, or fifths for the duration of their existance and never move independantly.

The thing that confuses the ear is if two formerly independant voices suddenly tonally fuse together and sound as one, or two dependant voices suddenly split apart.

Of course in instrumental textures, voices can be created or destroyed pretty much at any time.

4-part Harmony is based on 4 independant voices that are created at the fiirst note of the piece (the chorale) and exist all the way through to the final note, where they all terminate. This prohibits parallel unisons, octaves and fifths in 4 part harmony through the entire piece.

In instrumental textures, to "change" a voice from dependant to independant or vice versa, it essentially has to be destroyed and recreated, which can be done by clearly delineating that the voice has changed or is gone, through a sufficient pause, different rhythm, texture, a cadence, or some other major change in the music... It is largely up to the ear to determine whether the listener thinks of it as the same voice or regards it as a new voice. If the listener thinks of it as the same voice, it must remain as it was before, independant or dependant, otherwise it will confuse the listener's ear and mind so to speak.

Orchestral music tends to have anywhere between 2-5 different independant voices at once, with many more dependant voices providing re-inforcement for those independant voices in either parallel octaves or unisions.

Now I must ask the theorists in this forum - did I explain that correctly or are there inaccuracies in what I said?

Mike

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I won't claim to be a theorist, at least as far as Academia might define it, but I think you've broken down that particular approach sensibly and accurately.

Paul Hindemeth applied this same basic approach to melody.

The much less technical guideline is that parallel motion is neither good nor bad. It's simply static from a tension-producing standpoint, therefore, you lose the listener if you don't use it artfully.

The only other point I see floating somewhat ambiguously in the discussion is the fundamental difference between a doubled melody or part, versus a doubled or parallel harmonic function. It's not the same thing. The rules of voice leading apply to only the functional harmony parts. If the soprano part is an octave spread between an oboe and a piccolo, it's still one functional "part."

[Ron St. Germain]

"Orchestral music tends to have anywhere between 2-5 different independant voices at once, with many more dependant voices providing re-inforcement for those independant voices in either parallel octaves or unisions."

I think everyone had a good point on this. I found this quote particularly useful. It seems even the most complex symphonies are at root only four-part harmony duplicated many times in a vertical configuration (exceptions abound I'm sure)

[belkina]

Exactly right.

I would add that the qualification about changing at cadences and other "significant places" is VERY important in orchestration. One of the reasons I always point out that RK's principles are more precisely followed in music by Mendelssohn than in music by Mozart is that the latter is MUCH more subtle about this. Often in the course of a Mozart orchestral phrase an instrument will start as independant and then go into doubling, or vice versa. But it is ALWAYS at some expressive place in the phrase. This is a powerful tool for the advanced orchestrator, and it falls under the principle: ORCHESTRATE THE PHRASING, just as a pianist will shape a phrase.

This is how I understand it myself as a music student with the disclaimer that I might be explaining incorrectly given that I am still learning:

David Huron in his paper "Music Perception" wrote:

Tonal Fusion Principle. The perceptual independence of concurrent tones is weakened when their pitch relations promote tonal fusion. Intervals that promote tonal fusion include (in decreasing order): unisons, octaves, perfect fifths, ... Where the goal is the perceptual independence of concurrent sounds, intervals ought to be shunned in direct proportion to the degree to which they promote tonal fusion.

In other words, parallel unisions, octaves, and 5ths cause two voices to seem as one in the mind of the listener.

If two voices are meant to be independant from each other, and move independantly (i.e. no tonal fusion), they should move independantly for their entire existance (i.e. they should never have parallel unisions, octaves, 5ths).

If two voices are supposed to be dependant and "tonally fuse" together (done for orchestration purposes to make a voice stand out more), then they should move in parallel unisons, octaves, or fifths for the duration of their existance and never move independantly.

The thing that confuses the ear is if two formerly independant voices suddenly tonally fuse together and sound as one, or two dependant voices suddenly split apart.

Of course in instrumental textures, voices can be created or destroyed pretty much at any time.

4-part Harmony is based on 4 independant voices that are created at the fiirst note of the piece (the chorale) and exist all the way through to the final note, where they all terminate. This prohibits parallel unisons, octaves and fifths in 4 part harmony through the entire piece.

In instrumental textures, to "change" a voice from dependant to independant or vice versa, it essentially has to be destroyed and recreated, which can be done by clearly delineating that the voice has changed or is gone, through a sufficient pause, different rhythm, texture, a cadence, or some other major change in the music... It is largely up to the ear to determine whether the listener thinks of it as the same voice or regards it as a new voice. If the listener thinks of it as the same voice, it must remain as it was before, independant or dependant, otherwise it will confuse the listener's ear and mind so to speak.

Orchestral music tends to have anywhere between 2-5 different independant voices at once, with many more dependant voices providing re-inforcement for those independant voices in either parallel octaves or unisions.

Now I must ask the theorists in this forum - did I explain that correctly or are there inaccuracies in what I said?

Mike

[KeithW]

I have another question- in the Strings section, they are always talking about octave doubling, 3rds or 6ths. In the sprit of modern music (jazz?) why can't the strings do other intervals or even modern 7ths? Is this because there are only "4" voices in the string section: Violin, Viola, Cello and Bass, or is it that strings just don't sound good with other intervals?

Thanks!

Keith Walls

[dalek3]

I have another question- in the Strings section, they are always talking about octave doubling, 3rds or 6ths. In the sprit of modern music (jazz?) why can't the strings do other intervals or even modern 7ths? Is this because there are only "4" voices in the string section: Violin, Viola, Cello and Bass, or is it that strings just don't sound good with other intervals?

Thanks!

Keith Walls
Perfect unisons, perfect octaves, and perfect fifths are considered perfect consonances. If they move in parallel they "tonally fuse" into a single voice from the listener's perspective.

Major or minor thirds or sixths are considered imperfect consonances, which can move in parallel yet still retain their independence from each other.

All other intervals such as 7ths are dissonant, and unresolved/parallel dissonances (i.e. dissonances that do not turn into consonances) were prohibited in renaissance theory... restrictions slightly lessened as time went on, still in classical harmony there were many rules regarding proper handling of dissonances.. of course in many 20th century techniques dissonances are used freely and frequently and do not resolve in many cases.

Mike

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I would almost never even use the root of a dominant chord in a voicing, let alone double it in a modern (jazz) accompaniment context unless its in the melody note. talk about unhip.

Yes, but the moment you start leaning too heavily on tritone substitutions, et. al., you start flirting with the other extreme, which is the "too hip" dark angry jazzer disease, where the lack of grounding and clever harmonic play become unhip in their own excess.

Sometimes just landing the chord can be the hippest thing.

If hipness even is a thing. Which, according to Tower of Power is questionable, and they are certainly funky enough to consider authoritative on the subject.

[Beverly]

I am not able to put into words how much I am appreciating the time and effort you have all put into fleshing out and explaining this subject. I have been trying to teach myself music theory for the past two years...slogging through old and worn theory classics I have checked out from the library. This is an area I have never fully understood the principle behind. Because of your efforts, today I had an A-Ha! experience...thank you so much!

Beverly

[Ron St. Germain]

I liked the way Beverly put it. I have also had the "A-ha" experience at this forum and when you're studying by yourself, they are few and far between. I would like to see more arranging books on arranging for singers. They too are few and far between.

[belkina]

Actually RK DOES treat vocal writing, particularly choral, but I don't know if Gary plans to include it -- vocal simulation is another bag entirely.

There is a magnificent orchestration book in French, by Koechlin, which has a huge chapter on the voice, but it's VERY hard to obtain, and costs a fortune.

I liked the way Beverly put it. I have also had the "A-ha" experience at this forum and when you're studying by yourself, they are few and far between. I would like to see more arranging books on arranging for singers. They too are few and far between.

[dpc]

Concerning expanding 4 part textures on the vertical plane with the resulting doublings, Kent Kennans book The Technique of Orchestration lays the concept out with progressive and perfect clarity (a CD also comes with recorded examples.) In the symphonic literature Brahms symphonies and his other orchestral works are chock full with this approach.

[jazzobizz]

???!!!!OK I understand that the purpose of all this is to learn from the beginning but.....while learning the basics it may be useful to tell that rules are there to be broken.Yes you can divise string parts to get 9 or more different parts, yes you can.....do what you want if you know what you're doing and why.I'm not talking about atonal music, let's just look again at Debussy's "Prelude a l'apres midi d'un faune" written in 1892.Aren't we in 2006????
just my opinion, great idea to put that forum really.just let people get some perspective.

[marnen]

while learning the basics it may be useful to tell that rules are there to be broken.
No. Rules are there to be understood and adopted as general guidelines. You can't decide a rule doesn't apply in a particular case until you understand what the rule says.
Breaking a rule for good reason is the mark of a true artist, one who understands the rules well enough not to be imprisoned by them. Breaking a rule through ignorance is the mark of an ignoramus, one who does not understand the rules well enough to know that they exist in the first place. The difference generally shows in the results.
<hr>
<strong>Edit:</strong> I apologize if my tone was a bit harsh. This is something I feel rather strongly about. Too many people are claiming that they don't need to learn the basic rules and principles, because they're supposedly outmoded. Nothing could be further from the truth, IMHO.

[jazzobizz]

No. Rules are there to be understood and adopted as general guidelines. You can't decide a rule doesn't apply in a particular case until you understand what the rule says.
Breaking a rule for good reason is the mark of a true artist, one who understands the rules well enough not to be imprisoned by them. Breaking a rule through ignorance is the mark of an ignoramus, one who does not understand the rules well enough to know that they exist in the first place. The difference generally shows in the results.
<hr>
Edit: I apologize if my tone was a bit harsh. This is something I feel rather strongly about. Too many people are claiming that they don't need to learn the basic rules and principles, because they're supposedly outmoded. Nothing could be further from the truth, IMHO.

I was not clear enought; I agree it's a good idea to learn the rules and I did that myself and am glad I did all this work; just reading different posts I think it's good to tell people who want to learn that there are just basic rules and give them a perspective for after they complete the course so that they don't get afraid.Breaking those basic rules is obvious, you don't need to be a "great artist" it's done a long time ago already;again not talking about atonal music if you just take the music from the end of 19th and beginning of the 20th.......well just thought I had to point on that.

[wja]

There is a famous quote by Samuel Butler that sums up my feelings about this topic:

"Life is like music, it must be composed by ear, feeling and instinct, not by rule. Nevertheless one had better know the rules."

[qccowboy]

I also think some people are under the mistaken impression that music of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (and even later) somehow did away with all the rules of orchestration and voice leading. Surprisingly, the more you analyse music of the last 100 years or so, the more you realize that all those rules are STILL being applied, albeit in subtler ways.

The rule about parallel 5ths may not apply because of more complex harmony and the greater acceptance of non-functional harmony, but surprisingly, there are very few actual parallel octaves (other than doublings) in all the great music of the last 100 years.

I think the important thing is to distinguish the difference between rules of harmony/orchestration/counterpoint and the rules of any single particular harmonic language. The former will normally apply to the latter, while the latter do not absolutely apply to the former.

jeeze, I hope I'm making sense... that'll learn me to post 5 minutes after waking up.:rolleyes:

[marnen]

I think the important thing is to distinguish the difference between rules of harmony/orchestration/counterpoint and the rules of any single particular harmonic language. The former will normally apply to the latter, while the latter do not absolutely apply to the former.

Very, very well said. (Though I would quibble about how far rules of harmony can exist outside of a particular harmonic language.)

[aLfR3dd]

hi guys i have a question...we often see horns that play with strings (i'm talking especially about slow movements)....but sometimes trombones and tuba play too...in which case is better to use trombones and tuba and not only horns with strings??? sorry for my english i hope u understand!

[jazzobizz]

. Surprisingly, the more you analyse music of the last 100 years or so, the more you realize that all those rules are STILL being applied, albeit in subtler ways.

hmmmmm I can't see where you see that at all if you study the composers who tried to write new stuff (so not talking about neo classical composers)
few examples:Bartok/Messiaen/Ligeti and so on.

[marnen]

It's certainly harder to see because it's subtler (just as qccowboy said), but it's still there. Messiaen draws on traditional harmonic styles even while breaking them. Bart&oacute;k went a bit further afield, but again you can see the influence of "core-style" classical writing in many of his works. FWIW, he also took a lot of material from Eastern European folk music, and his compositional techniques were profoundly influenced by the techniques he found in the folk music he collected. I don't know Ligeti's work well enough to comment in any detail.

[belkina]

I don't want to toot my own horn, but my online harmony book talks a LOT about this issue: which principles of traditional harmony can be generalized.
(See link in my sig.)

. Surprisingly, the more you analyse music of the last 100 years or so, the more you realize that all those rules are STILL being applied, albeit in subtler ways.

hmmmmm I can't see where you see that at all if you study the composers who tried to write new stuff (so not talking about neo classical composers)
few examples:Bartok/Messiaen/Ligeti and so on.

[jazzobizz]

It's certainly harder to see because it's subtler (just as qccowboy said), but it's still there. Messiaen draws on traditional harmonic styles even while breaking them. Bartók went a bit further afield, but again you can see the influence of "core-style" classical writing in many of his works. FWIW, he also took a lot of material from Eastern European folk music, and his compositional techniques were profoundly influenced by the techniques he found in the folk music he collected. I don't know Ligeti's work well enough to comment in any detail.

of course all composers learned the rules etc....but come on, read one Bartok string quartet or a Messiaen piece or even better read a little bit of his "traite de rhytme , de couleur et d'ornitologie" which is incredibly interesting BTW.Again all I wanted to say is that it's good while learning rules to know from the beginning that althought it's a great valuable knowledge, a composer has to break the rules to try to find a little something.OK except if he or she wants to write "neo something" music.
Well, I won't go further than this post and that's just my little point of view.

[marnen]

come on, read one Bartok string quartet or a Messiaen piece

I have done these things. Please don't assume I haven't.

[marnen]

I don't want to toot my own horn, but my online harmony book talks a LOT about this issue: which principles of traditional harmony can be generalized.
(See link in my sig.)

Given your interest in generalizing rules into principles, I'm not surprised to hear this. Now I'll have to take a look at your harmony text! :) After the high quality of your orchestration text, I'm very much looking forward to doing so.

[dpc]

Bartok was a Form fanatic approaching Beethoven's level of preocupation with all those rules. The formal structures he employed such as in the opening fuge in Music for Strings Percussion and Celeste is a great example how these structures foster creativity and throw the door open to the composer to say what's on his mind or in his gut (seems that is the oft sighted repulsion by the anti-rules people: that one's creativity is hamstrung by structure et. al.)

It seems to me an abstract theory or rule that theoretical understanding of an art or craft is restricting. If there are bad rules, that's one of them.

[KeithW]

Perfect unisons, perfect octaves, and perfect fifths are considered perfect consonances. If they move in parallel they "tonally fuse" into a single voice from the listener's perspective.

Major or minor thirds or sixths are considered imperfect consonances, which can move in parallel yet still retain their independence from each other.

All other intervals such as 7ths are dissonant, and unresolved/parallel dissonances (i.e. dissonances that do not turn into consonances) were prohibited in renaissance theory... restrictions slightly lessened as time went on, still in classical harmony there were many rules regarding proper handling of dissonances.. of course in many 20th century techniques dissonances are used freely and frequently and do not resolve in many cases.

Mike I was quite amazed that many "classical" compositions, parts can be reduced to only 4 different simultaneous notes (octaves don't count.) How many 20th/21st century composers have used some of the more complicated/sophisticated 7ths/9ths/13ths we're used to in Jazz? The V7/I resolutions in some of the examples in the Kennan book actually sound very nice.

Keith W.

[marnen]

I think that comes out of the fact that classical harmony is usually taught first in a 4-part texture, so we tend to think in 4 parts a lot of the time (it's also true that the mind probably can't actively keep track of more than about 3 or 4 parts at a time). But 5-part textures are common, particularly in contrapuntal works. Given a sufficient ensemble and a sufficient command of counterpoint, plenty of classical composers write in textures with more than 4 parts -- and many of them know about jazz harmonies and other styles with added notes. I find myself using such things quite a lot; I recently wrote a choral piece where the 4-part chorus often divided into 7 independent parts to accomodate jazzy chords and strange counterpoint.

[Olen]

9th, 11th, and 13th chords, parallel and otherwise, play a prominent role in much Impressionistic music, as of course does pentatonic, whole tone, and added note movement, et cetera. By the time jazz came along, this kind of harmony was already old hat. That's where the jazz guys got it from in the first place.

[dpc]

It's true that chords containing the 9th or 11th degree etc., began being labeled as such in the era's mentioned but it really is an issue of semantics or style. Prior to the modern era these tones were simply thought of as non chord tones in relation to the basic triad. Therefore they were treated as such and would be resolved accordingly (the ninth can move in either direction the 11th must always move to the third and so on.) The modern era cast off this restraint harmonically and considered these tones as belonging to the static triad without the need for resolution. Melodically however you will find that modern composers still hewed very closely to the well established treatment to avoid weakness in the music. For example, a melodic line that doesn't move against the chord properly as in a descending line that hits the 4th (11th) degree and turns back upward. Or leaps of a fourth that are not within the chord which suggest a modulation or cadence in another key to the listener (even to the relative minor.) Composers simply wouldn't do these things because they sounded so poorly.

Getting back to the main point, 9th, 11th and 13th chords can be found in Palestrina and much earlier. The approach to and style of modern music simply labeled them differently.

[Olen]

Extended chords were treated as independent entities in the Impressionistic period and after. Often neither prepared nor resolved.

[dpc]

That's correct. Just having fun... I thought I just posted that fact. It's okay thought I read some other posts and see my point was made pretty well already. Fun to talk about this stuff.

[marnen]

Getting back to the main point, 9th, 11th and 13th chords can be found in Palestrina and much earlier. The approach to and style of modern music simply labeled them differently.

Have a look at Arnold Schoenberg's <cite>Harmonielehre</cite> (<cite>Theory of Harmony</cite>). The book is full of examples of fleeting structures (passing tones etc.) and ways to turn them into standalone chords. Personally, I think Schoenberg may take the power of analogy a little too far, but it's a fun read and an interesting source of harmonic inspiration.

[Steve_Karl]

Hey, guys,

I have enjoyed checking out what has been done in this section. It's nice to see how the text which once tortured my poor young soul has been expanded and illustrated by so many examples and annotations.

I notice you're talking about voice leading, and we have had numerous discussions about it here over the years. It is sometimes hard for people to grasp why these arbitrary "rules" have any meaning, and the explanations that Jonny and Alan have provided are very good.

I have a more general explanation that may also be helpful.

When you read any of the "rules" of voice leading, they can seem out of touch with what you have heard in film scores or some of the other musical applications we are exposed to on a daily basis.

That's because their basis is drawn from the evolution of diatonic music...that which is designed around the gravitational force of the traditional western scales and modes. There is no doubt that all of the common voice leading and doubling rules are valid. They come from years of highest and best practice, and were formed as a result of what "worked," rather than being arbitrarily applied.

HOWEVER...

It's important to note that even very "tonal sounding" music may not be Diatonic in nature. And that, I think, is where the disconnect occurs...when we hear things that sound "tonal," but they are not following the traditional ruleset.

Here is how I typically explain the way to approach voice-leading rules:

Say your wife walks into the room wearing a new outfit. She asks you, "Does this look good on me?"

What is the right answer?

YES, of course. This is the highest and best answer. It is the answer that men have relied upon since the dawn of civilization, in order to keep the love flowing.

So, can you break that rule?

Of course, but only if you have an overwhelmingly better experimental choice:

"Baby, I don't think that outfit looks good on you..."

"WHAT?" (tears forming in corners of eyes)

"No, that outfit looks AMAZING on you!!!"

See, you have broken the rule, but you have managed through your artistic cunning to increase the level of tension, then resolve it to even greater success by taking a calculated risk.

This is how voice leading rules work, especially in modern music. By ignoring highest and best practices derived from the history of western music, you take a gamble on destabilizing the gravitational flow...therefore engaging risk...in order to utilize the resulting instability to even greater effect.

The simple rule, then, is that the traditional voice leading rules will keep you safe, and keep your musical thoughts flowing. Break them only with extreme intention, and no one will ever have a negative thing to say about the results. But if you DON'T break them with boldness of intention, and the results are merely a destabilized line with no saving virtue, then people will merely say, "That's poor voice leading."

Best explination I've ever heard involving any aspect of theory!

Thanks,

[belkina]

Some fundamentals:

- the phrase "voice-leading" has the word VOICE in it. The basic principles of voice leading come, originally, from what is easy to SING. That means conjunct motion as a norm. The fact that instruments can easily play all kinds of things which voices cannot sing, leads to many interesting developments, but they are ADDITIONS to, and not REPLACEMENTS for the principles of voice leading.

- there is evidence that people tend to sort auditory experience, at least in part, by register. In other words, perceiving a line with very wide leaps as a unified whole is more demanding than a conjunct line. (I didn't say BAD, I just said more demanding.)

- apart from the principle of conjunct motion, the other basic aspect of voice leading is the idea that some notes are more equal than others. While much has been said about the equality of all 12 notes (or however many notes you want in your scale), suffice it to say that, for notes, democracy is NOT a virtue. In fact it is a very quick route to boredom. In any scale including unequal intervals, the notes enclosing the closer intervals will display a certain "attraction" for each other. Whether one wants to carry this all the way into a tonal system is debatable, but aiming for no attractions at all is, again, a fast way to make very boring music.

[Steve_Karl]

Great explanation Alan.
With every post like this my intellectual understanding grows.
I'm really just beginning to really grasp these things in mind and I appreciate your time and expertise.
Anything that comes to mind that you feel might be usefull, in the way of helping with foundational understanding will definately be read and appreciated by me!



Thank you.

[belkina]

Glad to help. Most things in music can either be explained in terms of basic principles like this, or else they usually aren't worth knowing!

Great explanation Alan.
With every post like this my intellectual understanding grows.
I'm really just beginning to really grasp these things in mind and I appreciate your time and expertise.
Anything that comes to mind that you feel might be usefull, in the way of helping with foundational understanding will definately be read and appreciated by me!



Thank you.

[KeithW]

It's true that chords containing the 9th or 11th degree etc., began being labeled as such in the era's mentioned but it really is an issue of semantics or style. Prior to the modern era these tones were simply thought of as non chord tones in relation to the basic triad. Therefore they were treated as such and would be resolved accordingly (the ninth can move in either direction the 11th must always move to the third and so on.) The modern era cast off this restraint harmonically and considered these tones as belonging to the static triad without the need for resolution. Melodically however you will find that modern composers still hewed very closely to the well established treatment to avoid weakness in the music. For example, a melodic line that doesn't move against the chord properly as in a descending line that hits the 4th (11th) degree and turns back upward. Or leaps of a fourth that are not within the chord which suggest a modulation or cadence in another key to the listener (even to the relative minor.) Composers simply wouldn't do these things because they sounded so poorly.

Getting back to the main point, 9th, 11th and 13th chords can be found in Palestrina and much earlier. The approach to and style of modern music simply labeled them differently.
I've been doing some studying in the Gary White book, and he did some chordal analysis of some various works, including parts of The Nutcracker.
In measures 1-49 of Valse des Fleurs, here's what Tchaikovsy did:
(D Major) V #viDIM7 V #viDIM7 V7 V... V7/V V9/V V7 V7 V9 V7 V7 V7
viiDIM7/V V7 I etc. Point being here is that these are beyond basic triads (at least in the harmonies.) So the introduction to "Waltz of the Flowers" is built entirely on dominant (V) harmony. There are virtually no tonic chords at all. So I guess we keep the melodies very simple (octaves, thirds, sixths,) and then we can make the harmonies more complex.

Keith Walls

[Narator]

Simply, an amazing topic.:|:

Rules are meant to be broken and that is everything that is there to be said.

I think we got the most of this mystery solved, didnt we?:n:

[dpc]

Beethoven is the master (of many many things musically of course) of appearinging to break rules but almost always showing that he didn't ultimately. It was a game he played that with only very careful analysis is revealed to the student.

[belkina]

Actually the reason for all those dominant chords is because this is an INTRODUCTION. THe idea is to create expectations.

So the introduction to "Waltz of the Flowers" is built entirely on dominant (V) harmony. There are virtually no tonic chords at all. So I guess we keep the melodies very simple (octaves, thirds, sixths,) and then we can make the harmonies more complex.

Keith Walls

[Leaf]

Wow fantastic thread, like Beverly... aha!!! I'll read it again tomorrow to strengthen retention. Thanks very much to Johnny Lost, Bruce, dalek, and Professor Belkin and others for these great posts.

IMO, Rules are not restrictions, they are like a roadmap to find your way around this place, helps to keep you from getting lost. If you are lost you will probably sound very much like you are lost. You can get off the road if you want, do a little fourwheelin, throw up some dirt, but best to always know where the heck the roads are, because eventually you may want to get back on one.

[snorlax]

I liked the way Beverly put it. I have also had the "A-ha" experience at this forum and when you're studying by yourself, they are few and far between. I would like to see more arranging books on arranging for singers. They too are few and far between.

Hi, Ron!
If you're in a pop music mode, I'd try to find a copy of VOICES by Anita Kerr, leader of the Anita Kerr Singers, and vocal arranger on 17 zillion sessions. It was published a while back, but I'd say the principles it outlines are not at all dated. It is primarily pop-oriented, but I'd say the principles are near-universal.
If you can find a used copy, it comes with a 10" vinyl LP:D with the examples on it.

Let's just say this: I used it to write a few vocal charts & nobody barfed.

Jim