When are Parallel Fifths Ok? || Brahms on Forbidden Parallels
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- The rule prohibiting parallel perfect intervals is probably the most famous (or infamous) rule in music theory. Parallel fifths and parallel octaves are considered errors in traditional counterpoint because they disrupt the sense of voice leading independence. And yet, composers from every era have occasionally violated this rule, fomenting jealousy and outrage among music students the world over.
Over many years, Johannes Brahms collected examples of parallel octaves, fifths, and other voice leading errors in a manuscript ("Octaven, Quinten, u.a.") that was only published posthumously. In this video we look at examples from this manuscript of parallel fifths by Johann Sebastian Bach, Domenico Scarlatti, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz Schubert, Frederic Chopin, and Georges Bizet, in order to understand the different uses of these forbidden parallels.
Chopin, Mazurka op 30 no 4 (Introduction) 0:00
Schubert, "In der Ferne" (Text Setting) 4:15
D. Scarlatti, Sonata K. 25 (Keyboard Idioms) 7:17
J.S. Bach, St Matthew Passion BWV 244, no 48 (Anticipations) 9:10
Mozart, Sonata K. 310 II (Passing Tones) 11:42
Bizet, Carmen Act 1 no. 9 (Neighbor Tones) 13:55
Beethoven, String Quartet op 131 I (Suspensions) 15:17
My new counterpoint course on Teach:able
jacobgranmusictheory.teachabl...
/ jacobgran
Edward Neeman, piano
Palo Alto: Musopen
ks4.imslp.net/files/imglnks/u...
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Randall Scarlata (baritone), Benjamin Hochman (piano)
Boston: Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum
ks.imslp.net/files/imglnks/us...
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
John Sankey, Harpsichord
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
J.S Bach - La passion Selon Saint Matthieu
European Archive
• J.S Bach - La passion ...
creativecommons.org/publicdom...
Randolph Hokanson, piano
Pandora Records / Al Goldstein Archive
ks4.imslp.net/files/imglnks/u...
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Carmen - Act I (cont'd.), entr'acte
European Archive
creativecommons.org/publicdom...
Orion String Quartet
Boston: Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum
ks.imslp.net/files/imglnks/us...
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
#musictheory #composition #Brahms
Hello, I'm a composer and music theory teacher based in Germany. Great video like all your videos, thanks a lot! Just one small correction: an accented passing note in German music theory is not called a 'Wechselnote' but 'betonter Durchgang' or 'harter Durchgang'. The term 'Wechselnote' is the German equivalent to the English term 'auxiliary note'.
Ah! Thank you Franz for the correction. This was actually my initial assumption, because "Wechselnote" literally translates to "changing note," or "changed note," which is a term sometimes used in English as well for auxiliary notes, and of course the Italian "Nota Cambiata." I think I know where I was led astray. CPE Bach refers to accented passing tones (APTs) as Wechselnoten in the Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments, which is a resource I use frequently in making these videos. He was referring specifically to APTs that occur in the bass voice that may or may not produce figures. Schenker also labeled the Mozart example in his edition of the manuscript, along with a few others that are clearly APTs, as Wechselnoten. I suppose that the German use of that term (and "Nebennote" as well) is more expansive than the equivalent terms in other languages, or that the history of the term is more complicated than I had assumed.
So I suspect I am not the only one confused! Rather than remake the entire video, I will pin this comment so that other viewers can easily see it.
@@JacobGran The German language is very precise. This is good for scientific purpose, but sometimes it makes things more complicated than they should be. I often understand things better when they are explained in English, though I am a German native speaker.
Passus duriusculus
I would happy to be friend with you. I am also composer and from Iran but live in Mosscow
@@goh2121 Oh please, all languages are equally precise if speakers want to be precise and equally imprecise if speakers are content to be imprecise.
For the examples from Bach (11:43) and Mozart (13:46) these parallel fifths are between the 7th of a dominant 7th chord, and the tonic (fourth above the root). If these dominant chords were tuned to 7-limit just intonation, the interval between the 7th and 4th would be a septimal 5th (ratio of 21 : 32) , not a perfect fifth (2 : 3 ratio). I have often wondered if some examples of parallel fifths could be explained by alternative tunings. I'm happy to have some examples where this makes sense.
That's interesting. It reminds me of a 19th century textbook I was reading by Simon Sechter where he kept insisting that the fifth formed between ^2 and ^6 in major was not consonant, and I couldn't understand why. In the appendix way at the end, he explained that he was assuming a form of just intonation where the fifths between ^1 and ^5, ^4 and ^1, and ^5 and ^2 were tuned first, and ^3, ^6, and ^7 were justly tuned major thirds relative to those given notes. That particular fifth got the leftovers, and so he treated it as a dissonance through the whole textbook!
that's great insight
@@JacobGran This makes sense if we think of the major scale as arising from justly tuned I, IV and V triads, giving what's known as Ptolemy's intense diatonic scale. If we take our Pythagorean spiral of just fifths, say F, C, G, D, A, E, B, then the A, E, and B will be too sharp to be good major thirds for F, C, and G by ((3/2)^4 / 2^2) / (5/4) = 81/80, a syntonic comma, which is also the ratio between the 9/8 whole tone and the 10/9 whole tone. So since we want to shift the A, E and B down by the same amount, it's the fifth between D and A (or ^2 and ^6) which needs adjustment if those are the triads you want to be pure. When we do this, the D-E and G-A whole tones become 10/9, and the semitones E-F and B-C become 16/15, while C-D, F-G and A-B remain 9/8. We end up with a major scale with a pattern of Large (9/8), Medium (10/9) and small (16/15) steps in the pattern LMsLMLs.
Note also that the minor triad on ^2 in such a major scale is really broken in two ways: both its minor third and its perfect fifth are out by a syntonic comma. Its minor third is (4/3)/(9/8) which is 32/27. Raising that by 81/80 would give the 6/5 minor third we want.
In basically any system of tuning which doesn't support meantone temperament, this has the tendency to come up. For instance, in 53 equal divisions of the octave, the best approximation to the major third (1.4 cents flat) and perfect fifth (0.07 cents flat) are simultaneously much too pure to support the illusion that 10/9 and 9/8 are the same interval. The best major third in 53 equal, rather than being 4 steps up the circle of fifths (that one is 21 cents sharp), is 8 steps down the circle of fifths. (So your C major triad would be spelled C Fb G if you just use the circle of fifths to name things and don't introduce some new notation.)
If we build the major scale in 53edo from nice I, IV and V triads, we again end up with a "fifth" between ^2 and ^6 that's about 23 cents flat of 3/2 (to a very good approximation, it's flat by a single step of 53 equal, which itself is a very good approximation of 81/80).
This effect is even more exaggerated in tempered systems which have a fifth that is a bit too sharp rather than too narrow. In 22 equal divisions of the octave, for example, the fifth is 7 cents sharp, which is usually fairly acceptable on its own, but by the time you climb up the circle of fifths from C to E, you're a little over 50 cents sharp of the just major third! But thankfully that means a single step of 22edo brings you back in line nicely, giving a major third that's only 4 cents flat -- actually quite nice compared to 12 equal! But the syntonic comma is the opposite of tempered out, it's been exaggerated to essentially a quarter tone.
The "fifth" between ^2 and ^6 is now 47 cents flat, which is... well, it's a serviceable approximation to the 11th subharmonic (and so its inverse the 11th harmonic), if that's any consolation. The overall effect is that this major scale has just a bit of mysterious alien-ness to it that is hard to place unless you know where it hides. Melodically, you might even sneak it past an unsuspecting musician, depending on how it's played and whether there was much sustain, but the minor chord on ^2 is now very broken, with both its minor third and fifth being roughly a quarter tone flat unless you borrow notes from other keys. (That in itself provides some interesting new options for modulating quickly and smoothly to what would otherwise be a very distant key.)
A lot of our inherited Western music theory builds in a meantone assumption that 9/8 and 10/9 are tempered to the same interval, and I've found that the expanded tuning systems for which that's the case (like 31 or 43 equal) are actually not all that difficult to begin to navigate, you basically just need to pay attention to accidentals and all the usual stuff works mostly normally (but usually with a much expanded toolbox for harmony, since you can do things involving the 7th harmonic or even higher primes). Losing meantone temperament produces much stranger consequences to navigate, but there's still a ton of consonance and beauty that's possible if you're careful and take a bit of time to understand what's going on in terms of interpreting just intervals.
I've noticed over the years that Mozart does parallel octaves just about all the time. After considering and rejecting various explanations, for example that he was doing it for effect or that they are part of a sequence of arpeggios and so would not be heard by the audience as distinct voices, I have finally come to the conclusion that he simply did not give a toss.
There's music theory. And then there's music.
I was going to say the same thing about Domenico Scarlatti . . . .
And that lies in your lack of understanding. Mozart never made parallel octaves without reason. Typically it only occurs between two notes of different quality, f.x. one voice entering the octave from a passing note, the other entering from a suspension. In such a case, no voice is eliminated.
15:17 in fact, this example is often called “Mozart’s fifths” as a unique exclusion from the rule, because Mozart quite often used e.g. Bb-D-F-G# -> A-C#-E-A
Интересно это понятие существует только в рамках опреднлений русского музыкального образования?(ну тиеа гармонии я только там видел моцартовские квинты)
I never realized that Brahms's collection of voice-leading "bloopers" (which I had read about in his biographies) had been published, so thank you for this excellent sample and the cogent explanations. (Incidentally, at 15'08", Carmen would be "flouting" the rules, I think.)
Yes indeed.
My counterpoint teacher (Sol Joseph) said that it's not so much that you *shouldn't" write parallel fifths; it's that you *can't*. (He was speaking within the context of common harmonic practice, of course.) What he meant was that the interval of a fifth is harmony-defining: the fifth C-G says "C" (major or minor). If you immediately move from there to, say, D-A, declaring "D" (major or minor), you have, in a certain way, contradicted yourself. Instead of presenting a convincing motion from C to D, you've simply changed your mind, declaring one tonal center after another without connection. I've always found this to be an interesting way to think about the question. It immediately makes clear why many of the fifths in Brahms's examples that arise from passing tones and neighbor notes are not violations of the rules (properly understood). On the other hand, it shows that the fifths in the Schubert example are genuine parallels - a genuine case of moving from one tonal center to another (for expressive purposes).
As you pointed out, Schenker shows how the Schubert example can be understood in its larger context, in terms of the melodic progressions in all the voices as well as the motivic parallelism. There are many ways to mitigate parallels: parallels in the middleground can be mitigated by foreground figuration (e.g. 5-6 exchange), and parallels in the foreground can often be explained in the context of the middleground (e.g. Schenker's explanation of the Schubert example). As Brahms said, "When and where one finds consecutive fifths that are actually bad, usually everything else is equally bad, so that the one fault is beyond consideration."
Excellent points. I wanted to include that Brahms quote because its just about my favorite from the whole document, but I couldn't find a moment to stream line it in.
Interesting. On the other hand, rural blues harmony is totally based only on parallel fifths, while New York blues inserts tonal intermediate passages.
This is a helpful way of looking at it. Also, from the point of view of information theory, a parallel motion of octave or fifth adds no new information, so one of the extra notes is wasted. With thirds and sixths, the internal gap usually changes.
You can choose to mitigate parallel octaves, or you can spell it out in triple octaves like Schubert! 😀
@@laurenceglazier Of course, composers routinely double instrumental lines in octaves, which is a coloristic effect rather than a melodic addition. The problem with incidental parallel octaves is that one voice suddenly stops being independent. For that matter, excessive parallel thirds and sixths aren't truly independent either, for that matter- I believe there were proscriptions against it in Rameau's diatonic harmony?
the scarlatti example is a perfect example of "seems that way on-paper, isn't that way when played" on-paper analysis has massive limitations when dealing with just about anything and you'll always have to consult your ears on whether or not something is parallel. There is a large enough timeframe between each note, for there to be no forbidden parallel and the voices stay independent.
I remember when I sung Rachmaninoff Vespers being surprised by all the parallel fifths in the basses/baritones, and then thinking something like "well the Russians were sort of doing their own thing." Don't know if that's true, just what I thought at the time.
That's interesting; I'll have to check that out. It could be a Russian thing, it could be a 20th century thing, or it might even be a choral idiom thing (20th c Russian choral music sometimes also uses 6/4 and other inverted chords in surprisingly dissonant ways).
@@JacobGran Thank you for the response.
The greater the number of parts past 4 the less rigorously all rules are observed together mostly it's only hidden 5ths and octaves that happen if I remember but also seems like he must have been going for a deliberate power foundation kind of sound to do blatant parallels
@@lerippletoe6893 Kodaly also used them in at least one piece (his Hymn to King/St. Stephen IIRC) when he was writing in more than 4 parts.
Yes, the lower voices on the word "Tvoyemu" in Nyne Otpuschayeshi it's a great example of breaking the rules of counterpoint in a beneficial way.
The Chopin mazurka example works, because the third beat was established in the measures prior to be an entirely seperate set of voices to the first two. there are no parallels, as the C# doesn't move down to C, and the F# doesn't move down to F, only they harmonic anchors do. in reality, the outer voices on beats 1 and 2, move in such a way: Soprano:(D)C#(C)B(Bb)A(Ab)G the notes in parenthesis are non-chord tones, Bass: F#, E, D, C.
There would still be parallel fifths if it were not for the acciaccatura at the start of each measure, as they dissipate the forbidden motion by keeping the voices intact.
In addtion to this, there are also a number of generally accepted paralell fifths (and octvaes) (accepted gestures, if you like) depending on style and time period.
Very unlightening video! I didn't know the fact that some parallel fifths are used in the classical repertoire was a source of inquiry among tonal composers. I always assumed that they just rationalize away the exceptions to the rule by following the principle 'ear first, theory second'. But no, some composers did find the contradiction between the practice and the theory problematic, as you show us.
By the way, I was surprised when you said that the ban of parallel fifths is due to a desire for more voice leading independance. If it was true, wouldn't have parallel 3rds and 6ths also been forbidden? I might have misunderstood your statement: if so, don't hesistate to point it out
That's a great point. As a matter of fact, Fux does warn against too much parallel motion of any kind; too many parallel thirds or sixths in a row would also severely weaken the sense of voice leading independence. A well-made counterpoint exercise should have an interesting variety of intervals and voice leading motions. But, the difference between the perfect and imperfect consonances is that the perfect consonances have a tendency towards "tonal fusion," which means that the two tones that make up the interval share enough partials that the ear has a tendency to perceive them as originating from the same sound source, and so perfect intervals have a tendency to be perceived as a single sound image rather than two. For that reason, even a brief succession of perfect intervals moving in parallel motion can create a sense of a single, thick moving line rather than two independent lines.
Of course, this argument is based on modern understandings of acoustics and the physiology of the ear. The old theorists like Zarlino and Fux would have made the same argument ("parallel perfect intervals weaken the sense of voice leading independence") but without scientific evidence. Their evidence was based on observation and experience, which I find fascinating.
@@JacobGran Thank you for your answer!
Truth is this highly religious 17th century Europe hated parallel fifths cause it sounds pagan. Just kidding, great video
@@JacobGran I've read that it wasn't until the development of sound spectroscopy that we understood that instrumental combinations recommended by orchestrators for centuries were all essentially based in the idea of spectral flatness and keeping resonant peaks out of the way of each other!
mozart often uses paralels octaves in his sonatas and so does beethoven in his 5th sonata for like 4 mesures it's only paralels octaves(mov 1 mesure 82 to 85 if you want to verify)
Yes, in fact there are many famous examples of the same type of use of octaves: the opening of Beethoven's Fifth symphony, the opening of Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, almost the entirety of Chopins Etude op 25 no 10 and the finale of the B-flat minor Sonata. These octaves would not have been considered any kind of voice leading error in their day, and it would not have occurred to Brahms to criticize them in this regard. Later composers and theorists refer to them sometimes as "orchestrational" doublings rather than voice leading doublings. There is only one melody in the texture, which has been thickened in unison and octaves, and so there is no pretense to voice leading independence in the first place. Schenker referred to some of these examples as "couplings," as a reference to the octave and register doublings that happen with organ stops.
This is one of the days I am happy and grateful that TH-cam exists. Didn't search for it, the algorithm has led me here. Reading the comments, I am amazed that parallel fifths still were/are forbidden when you studied composition in the 20th/21st century. Did Lachenmann, Huber and Ligeti abide to the rule? Or is this a merely academic exercise?
It's been a take-it-or-leave-it matter since Debussy and Stravinsky, with the proviso that you should know the rules before you break them. Composers who were still very much rooted in the contrapunctal tradition- like the Second Viennese School- were still fairly studious about avoiding it, since it's a proscription that concerns voice independence rather than tonal harmony. Independence of voice is almost definitionally not a concern in sound-mass composition.
@@DeflatingAtheism An answer, as clear as a bell. Thanks.
I expressed early on in the video that there is still today a lot of confusion on this topic, and although the number of negative comments based in that confusion I think proves my point, I am disappointed that I didn't clear things up within the body of the video more explicitly. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my framing of the whole topic, or maybe people are jumping to conclusions based on the title, I don't know. My goal in this video was to try to understand Brahms's perspective, as a composer in the common practice, on this particular analytical question that was very relevant to him and his predecessors. I am not recommending (or commanding or prescribing, etc.) that modern composers or songwriters avoid parallel fifths as some kind of imperative. A composer should avoid them if the intended effect is voice leading independence and polyphony, just like a painter intending to create the effect of realistic perspective should for that purpose employ the "rule" of a cross-ratio. These forbidden parallels are not nearly as controversial in later music, rightly so, and one of the interesting points that Brahms raises is that even Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven broke the letter of this rule (but not the spirit of polyphony behind it) *during* the common practice. Your comment raised this question accurately and politely, so I will try to highlight it and my response.
Did Brahms leave an opinion on, or classify, Beethoven's parallel fifth? If he did, I'd be interested to know what it was. Thanks.
In the song "We are Siamese" from Lady and the Tramp, there is a whole *empire* of parallel fifths.
Scarlatti's only excuse would have been that it sounds good, theory never was a justification for him.
Parallel fifths are forbidden in species counterpoint, not necessarily composition (Bach's example) let alone orchestration (Chopin's example). Applying rhythmic shift, which is likely Schenker's "apology", doesn't break traditional musical conventions!
If it is that simple, why would Brahms even bother making that list?
That's an interesting point. Can you explain what you mean when you say that the Chopin fifths are justified through orchestration?
@@JacobGran basically octave doubling but with fifths. If we can double an instrument in an orchestra an octave below or above, Chopin should double even if it's only for a short passage. Likewise, if there's not enough space for an octave, then he'll use a perfect fifth.
Not even! Have a look at Traité de contrepoint by Noel-Gallon and Marcel Bitsch - they allow all the parallel fifths Brahms considered ok. The treatise outlines in detail how and when parallel fifths can be allowed. Basically, anytime the second 5th involves non-harmonic tones, they're not considered "real" and therefore ok.
@@JacobGran The parallel fifths are used as a texture, not as independent voices. Parallel fifths are always okay, so long as they are not expected to be independent contrapuntal voices.
Great video again thanks. Regarding the last example involving the German augmented 6th chord. When I studied composition, we were told that parallel 5ths occurring between the German 6+ and the dominant were acceptable as it is impossible to avoid them. Composers often interpolate the Tonic 6/4 chord to mitigate the effect and make a strong closure on the Tonic.
Thank you for all these great videos!
I just noticed a translation error at 13:30 -> That's not a "Wechselnote". It's a "Durchgangsnote" and it's missing the translation for accented. It should be translated with "Betonte Durchgangsnote".
It's been a while since I worked through my harmony theory books, but except for Schubert none of the examples strike me as particularly obvious parallel fifths. Even categorizing them as such feels like hairsplitting to me. Having said that, when something sounded off in my slower string or brass parts, I've found that parallel fifths were involved more than once. Unless you get nitpicky about this so-called rule, it's actually a useful guideline in certain circumstances. Ah, and thanks for pointing out Brahms' notes! I wasn't aware of them.
In the opening of Act III of Puccini's "La Boheme," he used parallel fifths (flutes) to most effectively depict the freezing temperature during a Paris winter.
Ah, that's a really good example!
A flute's tone is so sinusoidal I would think it would be an almost coloristic effect!
15:12 That's such a good (and poetic) description!
Thanks for this video!
For some centuries now, we have been told not to use parallel fifths. This comes after centuries when we were told to only use parallel fifths (and fourths). So, what's next?
Not sure if Brahms got to this in the quoted treatise, but pipe organs very often have stops (mutations and mixtures) whose whole job is to generate parallel octaves and fifths (sometimes also including parallel major thirds). Of course, this is done for flavoring and blending purposes, not to create extra voices.
Very very very very good!
Thank you very much, Dr. Jacob Gran!
Hello. I am very intrigued by your channel and you talk about many things such as Gradus ad Parnassum by Johann Josef Fux or Figured Bass. Are there anythings such as these types of examples that Mozart taught his pupils or Haydn taught Beethoven that isnt very common knowledge? Thank you
Great question. The classical Viennese composers seemed to have a pretty consistent curriculum: 1) Thoroughbass; 2) Counterpoint (starting with the strict species and going through canon and fugue); and 3) Italian versification. These are the three subjects Mozart taught to Attwood, and they are the three subjects Beethoven learned from his teachers in the 1790s. In fact, he had already studied the first two so thoroughly with Haydn and Albrechtsberger that when he went to Salieri, they focused entirely on the third subject by composing Italian arias, duets, etc., focusing on the text setting. There aren't many surprising lessons, IMO, other than when Albrechtsberger changed the rules of strict counterpoint in lessons that he called, "freie Satz," or "free composition." I discuss those exercises in this video:
th-cam.com/video/IWfilb7HIbk/w-d-xo.html
@@JacobGran Wow, thank you very much! Im a rising freshman in composition and will do as much as I can for the rest of the summer studying!
@@JacobGran do you have recommendations for videos (or other resources) on 3)?
That Bizet example is brilliant.
That one is my favorite as well.
@@JacobGran And how many times did Brahms ever say "sehr gut"?
Check 17-18 bar of 2nd. mov. of his string quartet no.1. It has parallel 5th between soprano and bass. It is so exceptional in Brahms's music.
What do you think of Nottebohm suggesting that Beethoven never learned how to answer a fugal subject? There are some questionable ones like the fugue from op 35 he answers (bd-ed-bd-ed) to (bd-ed-bd-*ad*) but it can be explain in terms of avoiding the V and stabilizing the tonic-dominant harmony.
Besides op 131, i cant recall any haphazard answers in Beethoven's late and middle works.
I guess on one aspect it doesnt really even matter. Im analyzing Beethoven's Missa, holy moly, its a tour de force only matched by Bach. There's a stretto of a stretto and its not even the most complex part of it!
I agree that tonal fugues, whether by Beethoven or anyone else, deserve more leeway in meeting an answer to a subject. Fugue pedagogy focuses altogether too much on the taxonomy of fugues rather than the underlying counterpoint, IMO. Nottebohm is right if he is claiming that Beethoven’s fugues are different than those of the old textbooks, but the deviations always strike me as justified and interesting.
@@JacobGran I definitely agree that people pay attention to the pedantic side of fugues while not teaching the more technical and creative aspects like usage of fugal devices (retrograde, inversion etc).
@@JacobGran It's funny, I consider Op. 131 a fugue in all but spirit. It's actually a late-period slow movement at Beethoven's most heartrending, that _just so happens_ to be cast in the form of a fugue, almost as an afterthought.
A deep and compelling question. I’ll ponder it as I recall the wonderful memory I have of the fall of the Berlin Wall, thereafter Bernstein performed the 9th Symphony of Nottebohm. Exhilarating.
I kept waiting for a discussion of "Music in Fifths" by Philip Glass.
For the case of Scarlatti, I don't perceive the descending sequence as parallel fifths. Instead, I treat the sixteenth notes on the weak beats (e.g., the note B after high F# and the note A after high E) as “prolonged” notes, creating suspensions. Hence, I think that this voice-leading is acceptable.
Next, for the case of Beethoven: I would avoid using the chord progression from the German sixth to a dominant chord due to the resulting consecutive fifths. However, the reason I feel that this is acceptable is that the E in the first violin is played much longer than the note A in the cello; hence, they are heard as two different voices.
Also, around 7:53, your video implied that the voice-leading from A-E to G#-D could be a pair of parallel fifths. So, I have one question: does the chord progression from a perfect fifth to a diminished fifth constitute parallel fifths? In my opinion, I don't think so because the interval of a diminished fifth is dissonant, and I have always been sticking to this rule in my compositions.
Hello, do you know if the rules of perfect parallels changes with different genres?
I am wondering cause I have heard perfect fifths in places like Bud Powell's intro of Parisian Thourghfare, and some of Joe Hisaishi's compositions such as the girl who fell from the sky use parallel fourths.
Yes definitely. I made this video only because I wanted to talk about Brahms's interesting document, and it skipped my mind entirely that I should explain that the purview here is intended to be the classical common practice tradition. Medieval organum, rock, and jazz are chock full of parallel fifths that are perfectly idiomatic.
@@JacobGran As you wrote in your comment above "moving in parallel motion can create a sense of a single, thick moving line" - and that thickness is what you very often want (at least in rock)
YESSS! Love it.
As a student I formulated this rule: Differentiate between Choral music and romantic/modern piano music. Parallel fifths are forbidden in choral music and bad between inner voices. In later musicstyles especially not-liked when I, IV, V and VI are involved, generally between diatonic, functional chords, typically tempting between IV - V - and worst when inside a phrase.
However, this analysis / lecture by Jacob Gran says more and more nuanced.
Note he says: you need a decent amount of Thorough Bass and terms to get the last bit, be sure to learn them NOW: Passing Notes, Neighbouring Tones, Suspensions, and Anticipations. My primitive explanation:
Passing Notes: from on emphasized chord tone stepping to another 2 tones away.
Neighbouring Tones: Self explanatory? But fx. when one tone in a chord changes, fx. ceg -> cea.
Suspensions: A 4-5 chord going to 3-5.
Anticipations: A soprano singing the tonic before the rest of the orchestra ends there.
And then jazz choirs come around the corner and completely shred that 😁
@@kennichdendenn ::(What a name!):: - Yes then came jazz choirs, and before that Wagner and any other composer. Perhaps except the oldest classic composers.
I think the explanation should be: Avoid parallel fifths if they sound as a break in style. The older generation of tonality-composers may have regarded the non-parallel voicing possibilities as simply sounding better for their purpose.
@@donaldaxel of course it's a stylistic choice! If the whole musical context changes, the rules have to be rewritten.
It was more a joke than anything - just like my username using second names.
Debussy did not care about parallels, and created beautiful , expressive music.
There is a üiano concerto by Mozart where he features parallel octaves in outer voices very prominently. Sorry that I don't have the example at hand...
There are actually incidental parallel octaves in one of Bach's WTC fugues!
@@DeflatingAtheism ... and one in his cembalo suites.
PS... I noted on your web page, Jacob, that you researched Brahms (as I did in my doctoral years). Do you sniff parallel fifths in the opening of op.119, no.1?
Very interesting question; I love that piece. For me, the opening is ambiguous enough with respect to harmonic rhythm and underlying counterpoint that it would be difficult to make any kind of firm claim of a voice leading error. The thing about a descending arpeggio is that we don't know when we've heard the true bass voice, so even if we hear a fifth in there (like the C-sharp and F-sharp in the second arpeggio), it is not obvious what role those notes are playing in the harmony. Are they the fifth and root of an F-sharp chord, or the seventh and third of a D chord? That matters because if one of the notes comprising the interval of a perfect fifth is dissonant with respect to the other voices (i.e. a chordal seventh or ninth, etc.), it hardly sounds like a perfect consonance at all, as we've seen with the examples in the second half of this video. Every note sounds mildly (or at least potentially) dissonant at the moment it is introduced in the texture. I wonder if the arpeggios ascended, or if the chords were played as block chords, it might be different, but that of course would completely change the effect. Another point is that it isn't exactly clear how many voices there are in the texture; the first arpeggio has 5 notes and the second has 6. So determining which voice moved in which direction would be analytically important, but far enough removed from the listening experience that even if I could convince my eyes that parallel fifths they were there on the page, I doubt I could convince my ears.
I think this issue bumps up against issues in Western classical music concerning the primacy of the score. Western music, although it has its origins in an oral tradition, has historically gave primacy to what is written, not to what is heard.
It's a Western (probably German via Rome) tendency to systematize.
Points taken, though I'm more convinced by the argument that the interlocking 5ths, D-G/B-E and
C#-F#/A-D, form dissonances with the other voices than that the descending arpeggios ambiguate the basses, bs.1-2. Registral/durational emphasis of the arpeggio notes in 1-2 make me hear E and D, respectively, as the basses, ergo b: iv9 --> III9. I hear F# also melodically, as part of a DN, F#-A to G.
Interestingly, such bivalence is more audible on a period Viennese piano, where the notes decay rather quickly.
Another Brahms passage that makes me HEAR parallels is op.119/3, bs. 36-7, namely, the unison octaves C-Db, where Db balloons into a bII triad, beats 4-6 of 37 and then melts into a descending "pentatonic" bII.
Schenker would likely hear Db as a neighbor to tonic C, but Emperor Brahms is wearing his new clothes here, if one hears C-Db as also contracting the descending third chain preceding it.
Brahms's correction at 6:06 , although it corrects the parallel fifths, brings up false chromatic relationships. I like the sound of both btw.
Brahms' heuristics are surprisingly good.
Interesting also to see whether Schumann used the SLIDE. I believe he (Florestan?) once remarked: "Those damn critics! I wish they'd pick out the fifths and leave us [composers] alone!"
Fascinating video and incredibly well put together! I would definitely argue the Scarlatti example as an implied chain of 7-6 suspensions so it's kosher. ;)
Interesting that Schubert's B min --> Bb major can be explained in neo-Riemannian theory as a "Slide" function. Does the "fifths" rule evaporate in this universe?
Good point; the SLIDE transformation requires parallel fifths. That may explain why examples of it are a lot easier to find later on in music history, in repertoires where parallel fifths were not controversial. It would be interesting to look at some liminal cases, like Shostakovich.
I just have a very basic classical education an I am rather into pop and rock music. According to my experience, parallel fifths and octaves can be very powerful if used intentionally. E.g. heavy metal lives from parallel fifths. But even in theses styles they are always some points to the entire arrangement whenever they happen accidentially. I recommend to everyone writing arrangements, no matter which style, to get at least a bit into classical voice leading. I must say, this cannel has helped me a lot to improve my own composing.
I think the fifths in heavy metal are often a thickening of the texture rather than intended as a separate voice, so they act much as octave and mixture stops would on a church organ. That seems to me to be why they are not objectionable (unless one already dislikes heavy metal for other reasons 😆).
@@jadrianverkouteren3799 Indeed, most of the time it can be seen as this, as the guitar at most cases plays only these fifths, the so-called powerchords, throughout an entire part. But very often the guitar also has other intervals, e.g. plays a 6th, then a 4th and then few 5ths in a row. In this case, the 5ths must be seen as seperate voices in my opinion.
Excellent analysis! Can I ask you if Brahms used parallel fifths in his works?
That's a great question. I assume he must have somewhere, but he did not include any examples from his own music in the document
Check out the opening of rhapsody in G minor, op.79
Then comes Debussy, Messiaen, Satie, Sorabji, Leo Smit, Boulanger, Ravel, etc.
I say parallel fifths are always fine, if the composer wants his music to sound in such a way, he can do whatever he wants.
Leo Smit Stichting used to do parallel major sevenths and, same as Messiaen. And more and more things by this modern composers.
That's what makes artistic license much like the freedom pilots have to break any rule to protect the safety of the plane: one can do as one wishes, but the responsibility of the result is ultimately on the artist (or the pilot). That is why all plane crashes are attributed in part to "pilot error," because the ultimate responsibility for saving the plane was the pilot's.
I think it's best to at first learn and master these rules, so that when you break them you are always aware, and can do it gracefully, in a directed way
Another excellent video. Thanks, Jacob.
My pleasure Tom!
The purpose of avoiding parallel 5ths is to enhance voice independence. There examples in the literature where a different effect is desired. An example is the final cadence of Beethoven's 'Waldstein Piano Sonata'. This cadence breaks all the rules with parallel 5ths and 8vas. This makes no difference as the effect achieved is a block of Dominant followed by a block of Tonic.
The Chopin example are "Mozart fifths" , each chord a double dominant for the next one
don't even know what a parralel fifth is but the video made me feel smart so i watched it all the way through, got my sub well done.
Fascinating! Thank you for sharing these examples with us.
My pleasure!
Im assuming thats why Beethoven never labeled the adagio as a fuge (that and answering in the sub dominant)
Yes, the subject and answer of that fugue are quite interesting. Beethoven transposes the subject's ^5 to ^1 for the answer, and allows that process to lead into the "wrong" key of the subdominant. The D-natural in the answer is especially sour, and, from a certain perspective, it foreshadows the shift to the key of D major for the second movement.
@@JacobGran Interesting you mentioned the transition to the second movement. There is a video on youtube breaking down Beethoven's advanced planning starting with the fugue (look up "inside chamber music: Beethoven 14 string quartet").
Like the Moonlight Sonata first movement, it's a slow, brooding adagio (also in C# minor!) that saves the proper Sonata-Allegro to the last movement for dramatic effect. It seems to me that slow brooding adagio is cast in the form of a fugue almost as an afterthought, or perhaps in a referential way since so much expectation is placed on that head motive.
@@DeflatingAtheism What do you mean stand alone fugue? Does the Grosse Fugue counts as one? Finale of Hammerklavier? Finale of string quartet no 9? The Eroica variations (op 35 I think) has an extraordinary fugue (and canon, variation 6 I believe)
@@leonhardeuler6811 Massive brainfart on my part! My comment has been edited!
¡Excelente video! ¡Muchas gracias, maestro!
Are octave jumps considered parralel fifths or octaves?
Say the treble plays C C and the bass plays (low) C, (middle) C. Is that parallel octaves?
Interesting question. I don't know of any examples of that, and it is hard to imagine a situation where that could be done fluently, even if it was not parallel octaves. If it happened, I think it would more likely sound like a repositioning of the chord into a higher register (what Schenker called a "register transfer), rather than genuine leaps.
@@JacobGran I asked because i know an example. I saw a question on your video about invertible counterpoint and someone mentioned Beethoven op 18 no 4.
Its clearly on purpose. In the recapitulation of the second movement: the "crime" done by the cello and viola.
No. They are playing in unison which is not the same as parallel octaves.
It would have been interesting too to discuss the examples considered to be wrong by Brahms. Great vid 👍
Great video. Thank you! I'd love to hear the examples Brahms considered "bad!"
18:10
They can be used whenever the other options are worse. The purpose behind the rule forbidding parallel perfect consonances was to maintain the effect of independent voice learning, which is an important consideration for common practice composers, but it is not the only one.
*leading* and really it means voice independence which is mainly in counterpoint. I'll never understand why people try to apply these things blindly. If it sounds good then it should be ok. Music isn't math, it's about experience. Unfortunately it also has a lot of egotistical asses in it just like every field. If I play something I like and it sounds like crap to someone else cause I played some parallel fifths... I don't care, screw them. I'm not playing it for them.
@@SquirrelASMR Well, common practice composers think Sudoku composition has the potential to sound better. And we're happy to submit to external restrictions, to learn things we don't know, and be prodded into finding options we would have missed.
Creativity flourishes most within boundaries. At least for me and many others.
The voices make up the form. Parallel perfect constonances eliminate a voice, and tear up the form. It is a rule for all music.
Composers literally do whatever they want. Music teachers should know that more than anyone. You think Debussy gave a shit about parallel fifths? He made parallelism the new pink
Autant je comprends la règle interdisant les octaves parallèles pour raison de pauvreté, autant la règle sur l'interdiction du parallélisme des quintes me paraît devoir être assouplie. En effet, la quinte serait caractéristique de la tonalité et des quintes parallèles troubleraient le sentiment tonal. Or le principe de départ est faux: Par exemple, quand on veut affirmer une cadence parfaite, on met souvent une quinte sonore sur la dominante à la basse, que l'on résout sur la tonique par mouvement inverse. Ici,l a quinte affirme la dominante qui a vocation à faire cadence parfaite sur la tonique. . cela mène même à des paradoxes. Par exemple, les accords de sixte augmentée, dont la fondamentale est II (avec VIb), ont vocation évidente à se résoudre sur V qui fait cadence parfaite sur I. Cela- est impossible avec la forme dite "sixte allemande" qui contient IIIb, et on est obligé de faire un court-circuit harmonique en la résolvent sur I (souvent V optant 4/6 quel on enchaîne le septième de dominante et la cadence parfaite) ,car le résolution sur V, de par les altérations, amènerait deux quintes parallèles VIb-IIib => V-II. Il me semble que, plutôt que dénaturer la logique harmonique au nom d'une "règle sacrée", on pourrait être tolérant, notamment aux voix intermédiaires sur des degrés faibles quand la tonalité ne fait plus de doute
This is essentially the overuse of Mozart's fifths (parallel fifths in Ger6 - V) in a long sequence of "German sixth chord"-like chords. I'm Hungarian and Hungarian terminology is very close to the German one but a literal translation to English is hardly possible because nobody would understand it. The page of Everard Sigal counts as a reference "book" for me, along with the book of Reinhard Amon.
Very fine analysis. I learned a lot!
18:11 - "The purpose behind the rule forbidding parallel perfect consonances was to maintain the effect of independent voice leading" - If independence of voice leading is the purpose behind the rule, then why aren't all parallel intervals banned? Why only perfect consonances? I've never understood that.
Because fifths and octaves are so consonant that when they move in parallel motion they sound like a single, thick note, whereas thirds and sixths still kinda sound like their own thing even if they move in a parallel way.
That being said, common practice disregards using too many parallel motions of any kind. Fifths and octaves are simply considered an exceptionally bad mistake.
Make a video on stretto counterpoint
I may in the future, but in the meantime I think you might be interested in Early Music Source's video on the Stretto Fugue that just came out today.
Brahms pressed "X" to be certain? What a madlad
Very interesting! Thanks for this video.
Glad you liked it!
Thanks for this informative video. I think with all music theory the question there should be 2 levels of education: one more general theory, which would be more or less what we have now, and a specific music theory which tries to find a solution for a practical or theoretical question. For example: how did Bach think about parallel octaves and fifths because I want to make an arrangement or transcription, and I want to do that in the proper way. How did Brahms think about it, because I want to make an orchestration of a piano work by him, etc. This implies a lot of research to be done per composer about this subject, and would maybe be a nice project for university students musicology. W.r.t. the first level of education and the rule of forbidden octaves and fifths: the rule is not serving it's goal of the independent voices and their interaction always, simply because the context should be considered. Real counterpoint comes from free association not from mathematic thinking. But the rule was there, composers used it, so we have to do research on how composers approached them when creating their works.
I have a feeling that enharmonic parallel fifths in the course of a modulation can sound OK.
Parallel fifths are ok when they are written in music, instead of some 4-part writing exercise.
yay & whew 😎 parallel anything here we come! thanks dr. Gran 👊 🎵 🎵 🎵
You can have a little parallel fifths, as a treat.
@@JacobGran lol 👍 it's all i ever wanted... 🎵 😁
I feel like you shouldn’t have to use public domain music since this video is clearly educational and thus falls under Fair Use.
One would think so! But TH-cam is still not very nuanced on these kinds of things; best to be conservative.
Soy aficionado y me gusta la música que hacía en quintas con quena, zampoña o moxeño. Acompañada solo con percusión. Algunos sicuris lentos suenan misteriosos, como extraterrestres. Soy del Perú.
Thank you very much. Wonderful content
You're very welcome!
I could barely follow but hopefully I learned something!
Thank you for this very interesting and detailled content! 👏
Glad it was helpful!
When the second fifth is a diminished one ?
Dr. Gran has now liberated all student out of the prison that is avoiding parallel fifths.
Music “theory” is an outcome of the music, not the other way around.
In the end Is contextual... In the end they are a part of the music, also if more ancient. So... If there are some parts, as chromatisms or conjuct (? Sorry i am not a native speaker and time to time some terms... Are.. shady 😂☺️) motions, that can allow them by rules makes sense... Also It would be, as arranging a madrigal or even an hymn or a polka, acceptable depending on the context indeed... As in the brought exemple of the song there Is something mystical and somehow ancient, almost a hunoristic act quoting too many lost comedies
Chopin polka Is Like... A need of the dynamics (almost villager playing a flute fading on a pianissimo when asked something) and/or even a bucolic song fading away before starting partying, or maybe even before starting working again, Like "that song that went" then "mmmmmmmh mmh... Nice carving i made... Now yep... Let's go on else" and maybe a soupper of not that plenty feast that one may want, just once in a while even eheh
I intended to click the like button but only to know I already did it
When we hear something that sounds wrong, we can then go and say why it's wrong. Music theory is the opposite. History is full of rule breakers for a reason, that music theory is simply useless for composition, it is only useful in retrospect.
Great analysis! Basically it has to do with "disguise." If there is something interesting going on in other voices the parallels will not sound blatant, amateurish or harsh.
When you know what are you doing
Parallel fifth create an illusion of a key an octave lower, but with missing fundamental frequency.
Fun fact: timpani are missing their fundamental frequency. They only give 2nd, 3rd, etc harmonics.
Also, parallel fifths are often used in some folk music. I think in Moldavian (Romanian).
All musical theories, laws and rules are merely guidelines! Exercise common sense, listening ears and some brains!!
I think you won’t find the answer for musical praxis of today in a composer like Brahms, but in music theorists of the last century or decades , and who thought about the problems of our musical praxis.. If Brahms rejected or aproved all, makes no difference. There is good music with and without parallel 5’s and octaves, so simple is it. It is all about style , expression and exception. The first purpose of this rule would be to make the job as teacher easier, principally when composing do not sell that much... The second is to force the student to have more diversity in counterpoint and timbre, and create awareness about the voices, what actually works, and what is the most important aspect of this rule. If one teaches common practice, than is good to avoid parallels until the student has some pieces done. And most of the time teachers only see parallel 5’s, and rarely hear all the broken rules they see. The broken rules a teacher see in a well done composition are the same he rarely can hear.
I find it odd that parallel 5ths, octaves and unisons are avoided to promote independence, yet any other parallel is fair game. In my mind, all parallels have sounded like the voices working together toward a common goal. In other words, no parallel truly promotes independence. But like many things in music, this is a subjective observation from someone who actually likes the sound of 5ths, so I've always found this rule to be silly to some extent. Also, I dislike the rule because it's outdated (few people I know actually really give a crap if any new music has "incorrect" parallels), and it just satisfies theorists and academics. No audience I know is going to dislike music because a few parallel 5ths.
This is an extremely important point. In traditional counterpoint, excessive parallel motion of any kind of interval, even thirds and sixths, will erode the sense of voice leading independence and is indeed frowned upon by the old authors. Voices moving in parallel unisons are impossible to tell apart unless they are performed on instruments with different timbre, and even then they will just sound like orchestrational doublings, so they are obviously not going to promote independence. In the case of perfect octaves and fifths, although different pitches are sounding between the two voices, their overtones coincide: the overtone series of C3 is duplicated by every other partial of the overtone series of C2 , and the overtone series of G3 is duplicated by every third partial of the overtone series of C2. In other words, the two upper notes don't have any unique partials for the ear to pick out. The two different sound sources excite the same areas of the basilar membrane, which is a 2D surface and can't tell whether any area of it is stimulated by one sound source or several, and so the ear will sometimes fuse the two sound sources into a single auditory image. This is an auditory illusion known as "tonal fusion." Imperfect consonances have a significant amount of overlap between overtones, but not enough to risk tonal fusion. Of course, the medieval and renaissance theorists didn't know any of this modern science as their explanation, but their rule for avoiding parallel perfect intervals is entirely reasonable if the goal is the perceptual fluency of independent melodies.
In the Beethoven example there are no suspensions at all, you're very much wrong, that's a i64 chord, and the E is a chord tone. What makes it allowable is the fact that the A in the bass is not a chord tone, it's a neighbor tone. There is no german 6th chord, it's all melodic decoration. moving from a neighbor note and a harmonic note, in parallel fifths to two harmonic notes does not cause a voice to be eliminated.
Edit: ok you recognize that lol
Thank you!
You bet!
@@JacobGran : )
Shouldn't the first consideration be "does this sound good or no?"
I was expecting this to be a video where Brahms talks to us about forbidden parallels I’m thoroughly disappointed
Parallel fifths are ok whenever you want them to be. It's an outdated rule, unless you have a pressing need to sound like 1800. Jazz uses parallel fifths all the time: it's almost impossible to do jazz without them. Other contemporary genres don't care about them one way or the other. That said, it's good to know what they are, and how to avoid them in circumstances where you might want to, which probably will mostly be when you are writing in the classical tradition. But it's quite strange to teach music as if it were still the 19th century.
Smoke on the water...and fire in the sky!
Beethoven : again Mozart fifths. It seems strange to me that you haven't heard of those? f.e. Symphony nr 40
Good question. I have indeed heard of Mozart fifths but I dislike the term. From what I understand, the term came from 20thc authors looking at examples in this exact manuscript of Brahms after Schenker published his edition (Symphony 40 is in there). So this document predates the term, and as you can see many other composers used these kinds of fifths, not just Mozart. Secondly, the term implies that these parallel fifths are good because of some sort of appeal to Mozart’s authority, or that there is a special voice leading rule for augmented sixths that makes parallel fifths ok (there isn’t). The majority of the time, Mozart avoided parallel fifths in his +6 chord resolutions, just as every harmony or thoroughbass textbook from the 18th or 19th centuries would have prescribed. When considering the exceptional cases individually, as Brahms tried to do, we often find that the composer’s decision is subtle, and this makes the exceptions resistant to generalizations.
Thank you!!!
You're welcome!
Great video, thanks a lot!!
Very interesting for all those who teach composition. For me, a lover of music, not having the perfect pitch ( absolutes Gehör) this forbidden subject is not existent . This is my private view. There are more interesting questions to which none of you so great music teachers can give an answer as „ Who created the music when all composers only copied what their inner ear had heard. From where ? Or why do we love music, waste a lot of money and time for just listening. ( my answer to the last question is that we experience extrem inner happiness, ecstasy which comes only in this way to us normal persons. Few are the persons who reached the level of experiencing this kind of inner ecstasy constantly.. We call them saints.
Another example. Strauss’s Ein Heldenleben.
Primero viene la musica y sobre ello se escribe la teoria y no al reves.
This is so insightful✍️✍️✍️
I am far from being a specialist, regarding music, but doesn't this simply show that you cannot be dogmatic and inflexible, when it comes to 'rules' of any kind?
Someone, somewhere, will break the rules and the result will be absolutely fine.
How many people - lovers of classical music - will register these 'errors', as they enjoy the music? I suggest, none.