Parallel Fifths

[bozmillar]

I have a few questions about parallel fifths. I consider myself to be somewhat musically retarded, but I'm hoping to fix that issue.

composers for the past few hundred years have forbidden the act of using parallel fifths when composing. I've gone about as far as reading the wikipedia article on this, but I have a few questions.

My ear must still be very untrained, because parallel fifths don't really pop out to me as sounding bad. I don't think I even notice them at all. To someone with a trained ear, how does it sound? Awkward? Amatuerish? Nails on a chalkboard?

Also, I've done sound engineering for a lot of choirs in the past, and it seems like every time there is a song that the conuctor really liked, he'd always say "this is such a great song. It has parallel fifths all over the place, but it's such a good arrangement that it works." I feel like I hear this more often than not.

So, is the parallel fifths thing some sort of musical gospel that can only be broken by truly inspired composers? Or is it just some rule that some dude made up a few hundred years ago and everyone decided to jump on board? Or is it one of those musical snobbery things that people refer to in order to sound like they know how to compose?

Is this a rule for just a certain style of music, or is it accross the board?

Also, does anyone have any examples of professional music that has parallel fifths that can point out a time stamp and explain why it was good or bad in that situation?

Sorry, that's a lot of questions for one post.

[Pingu]

My ear must still be very untrained, because parallel fifths don't really pop out to me as sounding bad. I don't think I even notice them at all. To someone with a trained ear, how does it sound? Awkward? Amatuerish? Nails on a chalkboard?

I bet you'll find they do pop out in the contexts where they're inappropriate. The whole reason that they are avoided in some music is that they sound pretty empty, and it's often very obvious.




Also, I've done sound engineering for a lot of choirs in the past, and it seems like every time there is a song that the conuctor really liked, he'd always say "this is such a great song. It has parallel fifths all over the place, but it's such a good arrangement that it works." I feel like I hear this more often than not.

That's the kind of thing that people say when they have a little training, of a particularly dogmatic type, and don't use their brains or their ears.



So, is the parallel fifths thing some sort of musical gospel that can only be broken by truly inspired composers? Or is it just some rule that some dude made up a few hundred years ago and everyone decided to jump on board? Or is it one of those musical snobbery things that people refer to in order to sound like they know how to compose?

There are no rules in music. What happens is that inspired composers write what seems right to their ear; then theorists come along and try to codify why their music works, and compile guidelines for writing pastiche. Then, sadly, rather less gifted teachers take these guidelines to be rules, without even wondering where they came from, and pass them on to their students in a very dogmatic way, who then go on to write well-crafted, but unimaginative music. The particular guidelines that came from codifying Bach's music (no parallel 5ths or octaves, no augmented intervals, no exposed octaves, etc) seem to have persisted for a long long time. If you study Bach's music for any length of time you'll find that even he didn't always follow these 'rules.' Mozart certainly took no notice of them (he has a particular fondness for doubling the major third in a chord at several octaves).

Bottom line is to trust your ear. There are times when parallel 5ths will sound inappropriate (for instance in a chorale texture) and times when motion in parrallel 5ths is almost the raison detre of a piece.

[Fabio]

I have a few questions about parallel fifths. I consider myself to be somewhat musically retarded, but I'm hoping to fix that issue.

composers for the past few hundred years have forbidden the act of using parallel fifths when composing. I've gone about as far as reading the wikipedia article on this, but I have a few questions.

My ear must still be very untrained, because parallel fifths don't really pop out to me as sounding bad. I don't think I even notice them at all. To someone with a trained ear, how does it sound? Awkward? Amatuerish? Nails on a chalkboard?

Also, I've done sound engineering for a lot of choirs in the past, and it seems like every time there is a song that the conuctor really liked, he'd always say "this is such a great song. It has parallel fifths all over the place, but it's such a good arrangement that it works." I feel like I hear this more often than not.

So, is the parallel fifths thing some sort of musical gospel that can only be broken by truly inspired composers? Or is it just some rule that some dude made up a few hundred years ago and everyone decided to jump on board? Or is it one of those musical snobbery things that people refer to in order to sound like they know how to compose?

Is this a rule for just a certain style of music, or is it accross the board?

Also, does anyone have any examples of professional music that has parallel fifths that can point out a time stamp and explain why it was good or bad in that situation?

Sorry, that's a lot of questions for one post.

The "reason why" is a little mix of aesthetical and historical components, so it's not a blame you don't understand or don't agree.

For instance they sound pretty good even in Classical or baroque music if used properly (well hidden, and in the right "tonal moment"), were used for long time in middle age, and later were used again with plenty of success in Blues, Jazz and Pop, after some more recent educated music (impressionism for instance) used it too.

So it was just because:

- for a while ('400 to 900, so nearly 500 years...wow) the parallel "perfect consonance" (octave and fifth) were considered similar, and empty.

You should argue that a fifth is not really "empty" but for sure it sounds less brilliant than a tird, sixth etc.

So a polifonic progression based on "empty" intervals was a wasting of resources (suggestion was using voice to stronger sound exchanging "role" to the part, so every parallel voicing, even if not forbidden was not recommended).

- later the tonal sense (700 to 900) considere 2 fifth in sequence corrupting the tonal balance becuase they were used more on strong chords of a tonality (I, V etc.) and tonality was recommending the use of fifth for enforcing the tonal stability of the chord: two stable chord in sequence make confusion about who is leading...(that's questionable if you play IV-V-I sequence like in pop or blues...but classical music had different style and aesthetic).

Is it still true? This is subjective....to our ear, it seems not so important, but I have to share my experience:

- in the beginning it was totally unnatural to me, and I was wondering why as you do...

- after years of composing in pure style harmony (with all the classical rules) I can feel now a kind of equilibrium, that would be brocken by parallel fifth, and I instinctively avoid it for the sound they have that doesn't match the style I'm imitating (classical or baroque or renaissance etc.)

So my personal opinion is that the sound of it is recognizable, and if a style doesn't include it, if you introduce it, the style is lost.

The opposit: if you write pop music without parallel fifth...it sounds weak and too educated...LOL

that's style, that's art, that's music.

my 2 cents...:)

[rbowser-]

I love parallel 5ths. So Gregorian. :)

Randy

[bozmillar]

hey, guys, thanks for the replies. Those were far more informative than I expected to get. I'll have to go back and look at the songs I've done so far and see how much I've done this. Maybe that will help me solve some of my "this doesn't sound quite right but I can't put my finger on why" moments.

I find myself very under qualified as a musician to be able to say that the parallel fifths thing doesn't apply to me. I suppose that there are times where it's ok, but it sounds like it's the exception, not the norm, and I assume it's a good habit for me to get into to avoid it.

Thanks for the answers. Pretty much answered everything I needed to know.

[dudefromthebronx]

If it sounds good, do it. The rules of harmony were drilled into all of us by music theory teachers, who threatened us with eternal damnation in the abyss of dissonance if we even thought of using parallel fifths...or fourths or octaves or the already-demonic tritone.

But then again, my music theory teacher was kinda nerdy anyway. One day, a kid brought in a socket wrench before class and detuned a few piano keys...)(~

[etLux]

Another way of looking at this:

Never do -- or avoid -- anything without a good
reason. Whether it's parallel fifths or parallel
thirds or sixths or tenths or even parallel flat
ninths.

Or parallel motion itself.

Parellel motion emphasizes the importance of a
given line (regardless of the parallel interval).
And the parallel interval decides both the
strength and the color of that emphasis. A very
(harmonically) strong interval like a fifth lends
greater prominence, while coloring the line with
a hollow, tonally ambiguous nature. A major third
or tenth imparts lesser emphasis, while sweetening
the line with implications of the major scale.
Dissonant intervals, a flat ninth, say, will
actually weaken a line with harmonic ambiguity,
but bring emphasis by the bitterness added to it.

All of this, however, is stylistically contextual;
in that the ear establishes harmonic relevance of
given intervals within the framework of the idiom.
In strict Classical style, parallel fifths will
generally stand forth in a texture due to the
great importance of the interval in that harmonic
framework. In a tightly constrained pentatonic
piece -- they'd often just sound... odd, misplaced.
But in many modern styles with richer methodologies
of achieving tonal relationships, they'd likely go
completely unnoticed.

Best,



David
-----
David Sosnowski
www.DavidSosnowski.com

[Haydn]

Parallel 5ths sound great on electric guitar with heavy distortion. Quite the heavy metal sound!

Jim

[garymosse]

There are a lot of writing rules which bypass bad experience & lead to good sounds without too many corrections.
THE RUB....it takes a long time to see why a rule applies and/or to remember the rule that applies.
Parallel fifths & octaves. inner voice versus outer voice, voice leading of 3rds(up) & 7ths(down) and the BIGGIE to understand for me-the TRITONE!!
I've had this pointed out-unclearly-for years. I thouht a tritone wad an alinement of 3 notes..duh!!
It is an interval of 2 whole steps( an augmented 4th.) This is where the 3rd goes up & 7th goes down to resolve the tritone.
Piano players have the easiest job of listening because they have always played combined notes. Wind players hear 1 note at a time.
Gary

[Pingu]

Piano players have the easiest job of listening because they have always played combined notes. Wind players hear 1 note at a time.


I think pop guitarists have an even easier job because they immediately start labelling chords as complete entities the day they start learning - so they get used to what it sounds like to go from C to G, or E to A. As a pianist I simply learned to read the notes; and recognising chords, inversions, etc was something that I was taught years later. As a result I have several students who are infinitely more sure-footed than I am when playing a chord progression by ear.

On the other hand, move away from straight forward triads and the guitarists are completely lost.

[P.T.]

Parallel 5ths sound great on electric guitar with heavy distortion. Quite the heavy metal sound!

Jim
I think they are mainly used with heavily distorted guitar is because any other note combination degenerates into a pile of intermodulation noise.

This leads to harmonically uninteresting music.
It's a reason that I don't much like distortion. It is musically limiting.

But, back to 5ths. Maybe this is a reason that the rule exists. A 5th is not a harmonically rich interval.

[DarwinKopp]

I think perhaps the main reason parallel 5ths were taboo during much of the common practice period (which is what is largely taught these days) is because the parallel 5th too strongly harkened back to an earlier period when the church music was nothing but parallel 5ths.

During the Middle Ages, between the monophonic plainchant period and the eventual rise of polyphony, there was a period of, oh, four or five hundred years where organum was practised. Organum was essentially plainchant with 5ths or 4ths continuously in parallel. Eventually, this evolved into other intervals, 3rds, 6ths, etc., and this then eventually found its way to early polyphony.

So, any exposed motion of simple 5ths was regarded as being extremely primitive, being only one step above plainchant, so primitive as to be routinely and ardently avoided.

Much as, I suppose, the practitioners of organum regarded banging two rocks together as being hopelessly out of date, so did the informed composing aesthetic of the common practice period consider parallel 5ths.

With the rise of Impressionism at the turn of the last century, which initially broke the common practice period, there was an active search for "new" materials, and one of the goldmines of this search was anything ancient, primitive, or both. Debussy found great currency in all sorts of previously-forbidden parallelisms, while a work like Le Sacre du Printemps is a tour de force of parallel primitivism.

So the shackles on 5ths have been broken for quite a while now. Parallel 5ths are good to go once again, providing the context is appropriate. For example, if you are hired to write a set piece for a drama or film in the Baroque style, it won't come off particularly convincingly if there are parallel 5ths all over the place, (unless the goal was to write something purposely inept sounding). So, don't take that film gig on the life of Louis XIV unless you can get away with drums and a string pad.

However, one wonders, is it possible that some day the conventions of the common practice period will be regarded as so out of date that to compose anything even suggesting that style would be considered as primitive as the organum of 900 was to those of 1750? In the year 2600, will the ever stern theory teacher get out the virtual red pen and mark up the hologram of your obliquely vacillating tone clusters whenever they find V7-I with proper voice leading embedded within?

[DarwinKopp]

Regarding heavy metal guitar 5ths, the severe distortion actually completes the "missing" harmony in a way. The basic nature of guitar distortion is to selectively and vastly overdrive the odd harmonics, strongly emphasizing those tones above the fundamental open 5th. The result is loosely something like gritty/grating simultaneous dom13#11 chords a fifth apart, but varies depending on exactly which particular odd harmonics and in what amount are most prominent.

[Poolman]

No-one yet seems to have put their finger on the real reason for avoiding consecutive fifths. It lies in the Harmonic Series*. The first few intervals in the harmonic series (octave, fifth, major third) all blend nicely in with the root and sound very acceptable. They blend so well because they are reinforcing the natural harmonics of the main note. That is why organ builders include mutation stops and mixtures - they blend in to create the impression of one rich sound.

Now - if in your part writing you include parallelisms, particularly of the most basic intervals (octaves and fifths) then the upper voice of the two tends to blend in with the lower and "disappear" into it. In other words you have lost one of your voices, and in good counterpoint you want independence, not fusion. You may say "I'm not trying for counterpoint, just harmony". That's fine, but reducing the number of your voices means a slight loss of interest, that's all. Go for parallelism if it suits you!

You may ask, why not forbid parallel thirds also? Actually if you try moving in parallel major thirds, the upper part will blend in and get "lost", to say nothing of key confusion. (Parallel major thirds is exactly what you get in an organ mixture stop, but you don't hear the thirds as such.) But when we write parallel thirds within one key, most of the time we are alternating major and minor thirds. Having said that, too many parallel thirds of any kind in succession does destroy the independence of the two parts - they are really one part, adorned. Consider the number of opera duets that start with some kind of conflict, mild or otherwise, but which end in the couple resolving their differences and singing happily together. What interval does the composer give them, nine times out of ten? Thirds! Two become one.

*Anyone wishing to learn about the Harmonic Series can go to my website http://homepage.ntlworld.com/terence.dwyer/Tutorials.htm where you can download a pdf on the subject.

Good wishes to all old friends,

Terry Dwyer

[Pingu]

No-one yet seems to have put their finger on the real reason for avoiding consecutive fifths. It lies in the Harmonic Series*. The first few intervals in the harmonic series (octave, fifth, major third) all blend nicely in with the root and sound very acceptable. They blend so well because they are reinforcing the natural harmonics of the main note. That is why organ builders include mutation stops and mixtures - they blend in to create the impression of one rich sound.

Now - if in your part writing you include parallelisms, particularly of the most basic intervals (octaves and fifths) then the upper voice of the two tends to blend in with the lower and "disappear" into it. In other words you have lost one of your voices, and in good counterpoint you want independence, not fusion. You may say "I'm not trying for counterpoint, just harmony". That's fine, but reducing the number of your voices means a slight loss of interest, that's all. Go for parallelism if it suits you!


I can't buy that. Not because I don't understand the harmonic series - in fact most of my research has been in psychoacoustics, and the more I read the less convinced I become that Western music has developed out of the harmonic series.

The simple fact is that music isn't composed of sine tones - it's built from complex tones, and two sounds with their fundamentals a 5th apart don't necessarily blend at all, in the way that two sine tones would. In fact parallel 5ths can sound more conspicuous than parallel 3rds. Yet the fact remains that there are times when they just sound downright wrong, and there are times when they are absolutely right. I've gradually come to accept that this has to be down to musical context, and the fact that musical laws are absorbed through our belonging to a culture; not down to any kind of hardwiring that makes particular sounds preferable.

[Fabio]

No-one yet seems to have put their finger on the real reason for avoiding consecutive fifths. It lies in the Harmonic Series*.

That's what I wrote first Terry...:)

[LFO]

If it sounds good do it. If it doesn't sound good don't do it. :)

-Kevin

[LFO]

I think they are mainly used with heavily distorted guitar is because any other note combination degenerates into a pile of intermodulation noise.

This leads to harmonically uninteresting music.
It's a reason that I don't much like distortion. It is musically limiting.

But, back to 5ths. Maybe this is a reason that the rule exists. A 5th is not a harmonically rich interval.

Really? There are so many types of distortion and varied timbres that come from them that I would argue distortion is much more harmonically interesting than what most acoustic instruments produce. Distortion gives us everything from AC/DC to Led Zepplin to the Beatles...

-Kevin

[PaulR]

Parallel 5ths sound great on electric guitar with heavy distortion. Quite the heavy metal sound!

Jim


:D:D:D:D:


Not as good as parallel 4ths though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXPI30rPu4k&feature=related

[PaulR]

You may say "I'm not trying for counterpoint, just harmony". That's fine, but reducing the number of your voices means a slight loss of interest, that's all. Go for parallelism if it suits you.


Terry Dwyer

Very well put Prof - if I may say so.

For the starter of this thread I would suggest a study of Bach's Italian Concerto 3rd movement (it's a keyboard work as I'm sure everyone knows).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOP7z54BXYo&feature=related

[sonata5920]

Gday,

I had put this post by mistake into the wrong thread. It is here now where it belongs. What follows is not about composition but about the perception of musical sounds. As pointed out by others, the fifth has very little personality, being closest related to the root.


Poolman said:

“No-one yet seems to have put their finger on the real reason for avoiding consecutive fifths. It lies in the Harmonic Series*.”

I agree with the professor.

Consonance and dissonance can be understood by understanding the physics of musical sounds. Consonance may be described by some as boringly perfect. Dissonance may be described by some as the spice of the musical composition, creating tension and interest to be resolved. It just depends on the composer’s and the listener’s musical culture and experience.

In physics, harmonics are simple multiples of a fundamental frequency. If you blow into a horn, not using valves, the lowest note you get is the fundamental frequency or root in musical terminology. All other notes you get, are simple multiples of the fundamental note, as in times 2, times 3, times 4, times 5 ... . If the lowest note is C1, you get a series of notes as in C1, C2, G2, C3, E3, G3, Bb3, C4, ... (tempered tuning gives a slight deviation from exact pitches of some frequencies).

Playing the above notes as a chord provides a perfect sound that has no colour and is of no real musical value. However if the notes are moved closer together, more useful sounds will result. If you play the root note C1 and lower G2 to G1, the result has some more character. If you now lower E3 to E1 and play C1, E1and G1 together, you have the chord of C major. Moving Bb3 down to Bb1 adds even more interest to the chord. This process can be continued with higher harmonically related notes above C7, providing even more interesting sounds. Adding C2 to the chord gives a lot of contrast with the Bb1. The rule here is, move notes closer together for more interest and tension.

Ancient Greeks did not permit the third but only the root and the fifth for a perfect chord.

For orchestration, open spaced voices are recommended for the low voices and closed spaced voices for the upper voices. This reflects the order and spacing of notes as per harmonics.

Dissonance is a physiologically based experience depending on the listener. Most people consider two tones separated by between 10 Hz to 50 Hz as dissonant or as producing a lot of tension. Music, as any art, needs tension and relaxation of tension to be expressive of ideas.

Non linear distortion such as clipping in an audio amp produces lots of harmonics. If we distort for instance the sound of an electric bass and then remove the fundamental frequency, the root of the mix of frequencies, it does not seem to matter to most listeners. Normal hearing fools the listener into believing that the missing fundamental frequency is actually there. This effect assures the success of cheap audio equipment with poor bass reproduction.

Harmonics and harmonies are based in physics it is not something dictated by a person, wishing to invent rules.

Herbert

[P.T.]

Originally Posted by P.T.
I think they are mainly used with heavily distorted guitar is because any other note combination degenerates into a pile of intermodulation noise.

This leads to harmonically uninteresting music.
It's a reason that I don't much like distortion. It is musically limiting.

But, back to 5ths. Maybe this is a reason that the rule exists. A 5th is not a harmonically rich interval.
_______________________

Really? There are so many types of distortion and varied timbres that come from them that I would argue distortion is much more harmonically interesting than what most acoustic instruments produce. Distortion gives us everything from AC/DC to Led Zepplin to the Beatles...

-Kevin
________
Yes,Really.

As I said, with HEAVY distortion if you play more han a simple chord, like a power chord (5ths, possibly 4ths) you wind up with a pile of noise. That is why the power chord is used.
Yes, playing single notes with distortion is more harmonically rich than without distortion, but chords become noise and so complex chords are not used with heavy distortion. That is why I said that you wind up with harmonically uninteresting music, or at least harmonically uninteresting guitar parts.

Led Zep guitars are usually not very distorted at all and that allowed him to play interesting chordal parts.

[Pingu]

Dissonance is a physiologically based experience depending on the listener. Most people consider two tones separated by between 10 Hz to 50 Hz as dissonant or as producing a lot of tension.

That rather depends on where the two pitches are doesn't it. If a bunch of tones are separated by 37Hz, but happen to be at the right pitches to be the harmonics of a 37Hz fundemental, then there'll be no dissonance. The sounds may be rough - because the critical bandwidth of the basilar membrane (i.e. the minimum interval at which harmonics can be resolved) is about a third of an octave. The point at which the harmonics get closer together than this is amongst the harmonics that usually have litle importance to pitch perception, but with a note as low as 37Hz this may be not be the case. Because we are far less sensitive to low and high frequencies we tend to build instruments that put out shed loads of energy at the very bottom end, so as to be able to achieve similar apparent loudness down there. Which means that, for instance, the lowest notes on the piano, have tonnes of energy - and, because we are more sensitive in the mid range, the upper harmonics are rather prominent, but not resolved into independent partials. Which is why the bottom notes on the piano have that bell like quality of slightly indeterminate pitch - some of the upper harmonics are strong enough to suggest alternative funadmentals, and some of the distortions caused by lack of resolution create non-harmonic energy that isn't necessarily there in the actual stimulus. But that's not the same as dissonance.



Harmonics and harmonies are based in physics it is not something dictated by a person, wishing to invent rules.


Harmonics are certainly based in physics. So far every attempt to base harmony on harmonics, from Rameau to Hindemith, has been a near miss.

[Fabio]

PINGU: very well stated!

(that's what I was referring to when I told about the strong relation between rules and other speculation, scientific or philosophic...)

[Styxx]

I got drunk on parallel fifths once.

[sonata5920]

Gday David,

You said:

“That rather depends on where the two pitches are doesn't it. If a bunch of tones are separated by 37Hz, but happen to be at the right pitches to be the harmonics of a 37Hz fundemental, then there'll be no dissonance.

Harmonics and harmonies rely on frequency ratios. Physical dissonance has nothing to do with harmonics or harmonies.

Physical dissonance to a large extend is created by the interference pattern or beat of two frequencies. If two notes of the same pitch are played and then one note is changed in pitch. The beat that can be heard represents the difference of the pitches. At about 10 Hz difference in the frequency of both notes, the sound becomes a warble, rough sound, harsh. At low pitches a major third sounds dissonant.

Musical dissonance takes into account interference patterns of harmonics and is concerned with harmonies.

None of this has much to do with “Parallel Fifths”, just ineresting.

Haydn and P.T. have discussed distortion in relation to guitars. A single tone passing through a distorting amplifier generates harmonics only. Several tones passing through a distorting amplifier generate harmonics but also partial tones not harmonically related to the original tones. The partial tones are sums and differences of the frequencies of the original tones. This is intermodulation distortion. It does not sound musical at all. The fifths or any other combination of notes create intermodulation distortion when send through a distorting amplifier. The distortion is superimposing harsh non-musical sounds onto the notes. It is an effect. Its value depends on the taste of the listener.

Herbert

[oldbob]

fifths are, after the octave, the simplest frequency ratio between two given notes (octave=2:1, fifth=3:1). It's like saying the two notes are very similar... so, in polyphonic styles, where the independence of each line was considered fundamental, having two voices proceed in parallel fifths (or octaves) destroyed the necessary independence as they sounded as one in a way. Other than that, I don't know of any reason to forbid 5ths.

Roberto

ps hi David (etLux)

[rbowser-]

OT response - I cannot believe my eyes!--Old Bob--! Maybe I blinked and missed it, but I haven't seen you on the Forum for an extremely long time, like at least a year! HELLO! - Just the other day I was thinking of some excellent advice you gave me several years ago. Good to see you!

Randy B.


fifths are, after the octave, the simplest frequency ratio between two given notes (octave=2:1, fifth=3:1). It's like saying the two notes are very similar... so, in polyphonic styles, where the independence of each line was considered fundamental, having two voices proceed in parallel fifths (or octaves) destroyed the necessary independence as they sounded as one in a way. Other than that, I don't know of any reason to forbid 5ths.

Roberto

ps hi David (etLux)

[oldbob]

hey Randy! how you doing? I made my appearances rare here, so when I spring up it's like a special event :)
All the best to you, my friend

[rbowser-]

Seeing you here is a special event indeed, Roberto! I am doing fine, thanks for asking. I trust you are doing well too.

It would be quite a treat if you could post some of your great music again soon!

Randy


hey Randy! how you doing? I made my appearances rare here, so when I spring up it's like a special event :)
All the best to you, my friend

[Pingu]

Gday David,

You said:

“That rather depends on where the two pitches are doesn't it. If a bunch of tones are separated by 37Hz, but happen to be at the right pitches to be the harmonics of a 37Hz fundemental, then there'll be no dissonance.

Harmonics and harmonies rely on frequency ratios. Physical dissonance has nothing to do with harmonics or harmonies.

Physical dissonance to a large extend is created by the interference pattern or beat of two frequencies. If two notes of the same pitch are played and then one note is changed in pitch. The beat that can be heard represents the difference of the pitches. At about 10 Hz difference in the frequency of both notes, the sound becomes a warble, rough sound, harsh. At low pitches a major third sounds dissonant.

Musical dissonance takes into account interference patterns of harmonics and is concerned with harmonies.

None of this has much to do with “Parallel Fifths”, just ineresting.



Hi Herbert,

believe me I really don't need the lecture, and you didn't understand my post. The distance at which two tones become dissonant is not a fixed frequency band, because pitch is logarithmically related to frequency. For instance A-55Hz and E- 82Hz, with a distance of only 27Hz, aren't the least bit dissonant, either physically or musically. The reason that tones beat is that they fail to be resolved on the basilar membrane, and thus form an interference pattern rather than two clear tones. But the ability of the basilar membrane to resolve tones is not fixed either, at least not a fixed frequency distance - two tones can be resolved when they are about a third of an octave apart, including at lower frequencies. You do experience roughness when otherwise consonant intervals are played really low down, for the reason I explained in my last post.

[rbowser-]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/headache.jpg
Parallel whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

RB

[PaulR]

You will let me know when those parallel fifths stop screaming won't you?

[Pingu]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/headache.jpg
Parallel whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

RB

It's OK Randy - I've already decided I'm signing off this thread lest it become an extremely pointless bitching match. Nice picture though.

[Haydn]

I'll just keep on playing my distorted parallel 5ths. My kids like 'em loud!

I've been getting into parallel minor 2nds lately but the kids aren't too hip to those.

Jim

[sonata5920]

Gday David,

I am surprised and rather sad that you take these discussions personal. Nobody is lecturing here. These are discussions in which everyone can take part or not take part as one pleases. Having many views expressed on a matter makes it a good and profitable discussion.

Best wishes,

Herbert

[jesshmusic]

To add my two cents in a topic that comes up often, I must bring up why parallel perfect consonances are "bad".

In the baroque/classical of 2/3/4 part choral harmony the independence of voices is of paramount importance. Parallel perfect consonances do not sound independent in this style.

That doesn't make it a rule. In some cases one doesn't have a choice. When COMPOSING this is okay. When someone is doing a counterpoint EXERCISE, they should be avoided entirely for sake of practice.

This stylistic convention crosses over to modern music for the reason that it still tends to make individual voices less independent. BUT, it does work like an Additive synth or organ to have parallel perfect consonances to bring out a line. See Ravel's orchestration in Bolero.

[Pingu]

Gday David,

I am surprised and rather sad that you take these discussions personal. Nobody is lecturing here. These are discussions in which everyone can take part or not take part as one pleases. Having many views expressed on a matter makes it a good and profitable discussion.

Best wishes,

Herbert

Hi Herbert,
OK, I know I said I'd signed off, but, because I know you mean everything well, perhaps this needn't be a bitching match. You really need to think about how you offer your help, because every time I stumble across you in a thread you're in the middle of a fight, where you meant to be of help. The last two times I saw you, you were declaring yourself an 'expert' on hardware, and presuming to give DPDAN - someone who has proved his expertise over many years - a lecture on the very basics of monitoring, then trying to explain to him the very basics of phase problems in stereo recording. Both got very personal, as I remember.

In this thread you've come in with a description of the very basics of the harmonic series, seeming to assume it would be new information. Perhaps to some it is, which is why noone here would say, 'Shut up, we don't need that.' On the other hand, it was over-simplified, and contained some errors. When I tried to correct those errors politely, you seemed to assume it was either because I hadn't understood your post, or that my information wasn't good enough, and you simply repeated the error at me. No offense, but I've forgotten more about psychoacoustics than most people know - the level of information in my post ought to have alerted you that I could clearly engage in the conversation. Simply repeating the very basics at me again came across a little bit like an attempted lecture. I didn't take it personally, but I'm aware that I am naturally quite contentious, and can end up squabbling in such situations, so thought better of trying to carry it on.

Anyhow, from the beginning. The basilar membrane behaves basically like a set of filters, which have a fairly fixed Q (i.e. centre frequency of the filter, divided by its bandwidth). These 'filters' are not fixed in place, but are set up by the stimulus presented - i.e. if I present the ear with a sine tone, then you can imagine a filter has been set up with that tone as its resonant frequency. Each filter can only resonate at one frequency. Thus, when two sine tones are presented, which are two close together, you don't actually hear both pitches, you hear one, but with the amplitude modulation caused by the tones interfering. If two tones are further apart than the critical bandwidth of these 'filters' then you hear two pitches, and no interference. Because Q is fixed, the bandwidth of each filter gets narrower and narrower at lower frequencies. Thus at the bottom of our hearing range two sine tones can be much closer together without experiencing beating (closer in frequency, not pitch). Higher up beating is experience with much wider gaps. I don't know where the figure of 10-50Hz came from; it's possibly a good approximation in the mid-range of our hearing, but is a simplification of the overall picture.

The reason that two very low complex tones are experienced as dissonant, even when their fundamentals are well-resolved, is that many of their harmonics are not resolved, and cause extremely prominent beating. Of course the harmonics of similar intervals played higher up are also unresolved, but, because they usually have less energy, this is simply experienced as timbre, rather than physical discomfort.

Even a single piano note can be physically dissonant, because its upper harmonics are quite prominent, and unresolved. But this is where phyiscal and musical dissonance part company, since noone would suggest you simply can't use the bottom octave of the piano.

Incidentally, all of this is only theory. Nobody has satisfactorally proved cause and effect, and there are still theories other than the beating idea. All we have is a model that very strongly explains the correlations between physical stimulus and perception, but doesn't yet explain everything.

Anyway, no offense was taken here.

Best wishes