Parallel and Augmented Intervals

[Forte]

I've always been confused about the parallel fifths, and octaves and the augmented intervals, melodic augmented 2nd, and the augmented fourth. I understand that during the Baroque period, and the Classical period, they were to be avoided. However, are these earlier taboos to be avoided altogether still? I often see them in contemporary music. When are these no-nos to be avoided, and when are they acceptable?

Any thoughts here would be appreciated

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Forte

I've always been confused about the parallel fifths, and octaves and the augmented intervals, melodic augmented 2nd, and the augmented fourth. I understand that during the Baroque period, and the Classical period, they were to be avoided. However, are these earlier taboos to be avoided altogether still? I often see them in contemporary music. When are these no-nos to be avoided, and when are they acceptable?

Any thoughts here would be appreciated

The *harmonic* intervals of Parallel Perfect 5ths and Perfect 8ves were forbidden during the Baroque, Classical, and even Romantic Periods (Chopin is probably one of the first to start writing what we might consider Parallel Perfect 5ths, though in the context of keyboard music, they have been justified other ways - so the "more official" entry is with the parallelism of Debussy).

But actually, they were forbidden in counterpoint of the 16th century as well.

The *melodic* intervals of the +2 and +4 were also "avoided" in those same periods, and in prior periods, even melodic leaps of 7ths and a Major 6th were avoided. But these are treated a little more freely: Even in Bach, you will find the bass line Eb - Bn - C where a first inversion i chord moves to a first inversion V chord and then on to i. Like wise you will find C-F#-G. You will also find melodic instances of C#-Bb or the reverse (as a o7) in melodies (the 2nd invention in d minor is oft-quoted in this regard).

One has to be careful about generalizations though - the prohibition against parallel perfect 5/8, and the avoidance of various melodic intervals is usually presented in an oversimplified manner - there are very specific ways in which these things can be allowed or might occur, but teaching a student the different situations make for a lot of work. It's far easier from a pedagogical standpoint just to say "no parallel 5ths", etc.

Now, by "altogether still" I assume you mean if it's OK to use them now. Of course it is. Unless of course you're trying to emulate a particular style: When you emulate Jazz, you should avoid triads, because the language of jazz uses 7th and "more complex" sonorities almost exclusively. If you're trying to emulate Bach, you probably shouldn't use a Blues Scale, should you? It's not part of the style. Likewise, Parallel perfect 5ths and such are simply not part of Bach's style - the problem people have is that they're much harder to spot (and hear) than a misplaced Blues scale!

Otherwise, the reason to use or not use parallel P5, etc. depends on what sound you want to produce. I was watching a show with something about the middle ages the other night, and the composer had a piece going that was all parallel 5ths. Now I know this is not actual authentic practice (and for all I know the composer themself doesn't know how to compose real ancient music) but the audience will understand that sound as being "ancient" in some way and suspend any disbelief. So, in essence, parallel 5ths can make music sound "ancient" (so can other things though).

Many other cultures use scales that DO have +2 and such. If you know "Hava Nagelah" (I'm sure you've heard it somewhere) the characteristic us Westerners hear is in fact the +2. So, like the //5 example above, one of the "cliches" we have grasped on to is that to make music sound "exotic" (meaning non-western, middle-eastern, etc.) is to use scales with +2 in them.

Both of these are again oversimplifications of what's going on. The best thing to do now is understand their sounds and the effects they produce, and use them when you want that sound/effect. Then understand that composers of bygone eras used or avoided such intervals based on stylistic conventions and if you wish to emulate them accurately, you should follow the same stylistic conventions they did.

HTH,
Steve

[chckn8r]

Yeah ... what Stevel said...

If you ask around to enough composers out there, you'll get much the same answer ... trust your ears. If it sounds good to you, then don't worry about it.

There was another thread along this lines here a while back - same issue with some mis-guided perception of what they teach you in music school as being the "rulebook" for composition. I'm quite sure that the theory teachers are not intentionally reinforcing this message, but it should be made clear that theory is merely one of many tools at your disposal.

You need to take theory in context - view it as a set of guidelines to assist you in making some choices and perhaps constructing a general musical framework for your work. When it comes to getting into the details and working through composing, use your ears and your imagination - don't think about the theory.

If you write music adhering strictly to theoretical "rules", then more often than not, you're going to get pretty bland music...

D

[Ron Ofir]

Parallel 5th are very useful in Rock music, and they even have a special name: "Power chords". So what Steve and chckn8r said

[chckn8r]

Jam suggestion: Smoke on the Water!

Everybody now! Da - da - daaaa; da -da - da -daaaa!

Oops, sorry, those are parallel fourths... Maybe not...

[stevel]

Originally Posted by chckn8r

Jam suggestion: Smoke on the Water!

Everybody now! Da - da - daaaa; da -da - da -daaaa!

Oops, sorry, those are parallel fourths... Maybe not...

Yes, despite the fact that most people learn this as power chords (and in E rather than G) the part that Ritchie Blackmore originally played was parallel 4ths.

So let's change your suggestion to "Iron Man" instead :-)

Steve

[JimmyJOL]

Forte:

It's all about context. As Steve said, if you are intentionally writing a piece that is supposed to be Baroque, or Country and Western, then you would follow the rules used for that style. A perfect example, if you were into it, would be Opera. There was a period when French vs Itallian vs German Opera would follow completely different rules in terms of structure, harmonic language, subject matter, etc. even though they were written at the same time.

However, the modern composer has pretty much complete freedom to do anything s/he wants. The trick is to make it work musically. The best quote I have seen in this regard is from Vincent Persechetti in his book, 20th Century Harmony. The book opens and closes with the following:

"Any tone can succeed any other tone, any tone can sound simultaneously with any other tone or tones, and any group of tones can be followed by any other group of tones, just as any degree of tension or nuance can occur in any medium under any kind of stress or duration. Successful projection will depend upon the contextual and formal conditions that prevail, and upon the skill and soul of the composer."

Be Well,

Jimmy

[stevel]

Originally Posted by JimmyJOL

The best quote I have seen in this regard is from Vincent Persechetti in his book, 20th Century Harmony. The book opens and closes with the following:


Jimmy

Jimmy, do you have this?

I'm trying to remember - it seems like this book has a bunch of short quotes near the beginning the the tune of:

"new music is crap, and the current music is the best" - all of which are statements by various people (so they all say it differently, but that's the gist) from various time periods.

Is it this book or am I thinking of something else?

Thanks,
Steve

[JimmyJOL]

Steve:

I have the abovementioned book. There are no quotations from other writers and no comments of the kind you mention. The only remarks that could be construed as judgements are in the Forward:

'... During these (past) sixty years harmonic ideas have been in constant flux: composers have created new musical devices and techniques. This broad palette of materials has fundamental significance for the present scene, for amalgamation of the various sound formations and techniques is in process.

... Works of high caliber are plentiful in the twentieth century. The rich mixture of materials and styles is made up of many ingredients: rhythmic energy, vivid harmonic fabric, melodic color, and fresh linear writing. There are bold statements and delicate embellishments, moments of fancy, and developmental forces that refuse to be bound by a severe formal plan. There are daringly experimental and strongly traditional forces which bring divergent materials together."

After the Forward, The rest of the book is specifically descriptive of 20th century harmonic techniques, more in the form of a textbook than a critique. I must assume you are thinking of something else.

Be Well,

Jimmy

[stevel]

Originally Posted by JimmyJOL

Steve:

I have the abovementioned book. There are no quotations from other writers and no comments of the kind you mention. The only remarks that could be construed as judgements are in the Forward:

'... During these (past) sixty years harmonic ideas have been in constant flux: composers have created new musical devices and techniques. This broad palette of materials has fundamental significance for the present scene, for amalgamation of the various sound formations and techniques is in process.

... Works of high caliber are plentiful in the twentieth century. The rich mixture of materials and styles is made up of many ingredients: rhythmic energy, vivid harmonic fabric, melodic color, and fresh linear writing. There are bold statements and delicate embellishments, moments of fancy, and developmental forces that refuse to be bound by a severe formal plan. There are daringly experimental and strongly traditional forces which bring divergent materials together."

After the Forward, The rest of the book is specifically descriptive of 20th century harmonic techniques, more in the form of a textbook than a critique. I must assume you are thinking of something else.

Be Well,

Jimmy

Thanks Jimmy. I must be thinking of something else then. Been trying to relocate those quotes for a while.

Peace,
Steve