# Tessitura as an excuse for bad/weak voice leading



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 22, 2021)

As the title suggests, orchestration seems to be a common exemption for weak voice leading in film music. Interest in the topic spurred from a thread regarding strict following of *common practice* voice leading in John Williams scores in one moment, then without cause abandoning it the next moment.

For reference, that thread can be read here: https://vi-control.net/community/threads/things-in-jw-scores-that-do-not-make-sense.106846/

The most compelling explanation came from @Gene Pool and @Dr. Shagwell who proposed that in the example, Williams made the choice in order to best preserve the tessitura of (in this case) the bass trombone.

However, _should_ tessitura be, as Brahms' writings teach us, an acceptable exception in *common practice* composition? The video below summarizes some of my thoughts, and confirmed the efficacy of correcting the questionable voice leading in a famous composer. 🧙‍♂️ 




Spoiler: "jazz hands" and "doing what he feels" apparently are not quite good enough. 😉

Lastly, I understand that contemporary ears are much more culturally tolerant of dissonance, guitar "power chords," and that music theory is dumb or counterpoint sucks. This is an inquiry into* common practice* composition, to which JW (and the canonical composers) always adhered except for particular effect (like lifting from The Planets Mars' wind parts... also see the Chopin example in the video above), in jazz cues, or if there was an oversight due to insane time constraints.


----------



## GNP (May 22, 2021)

"Common practice" doesn't mean anything when you're breaking the rules. Junkie XL used tons of moving fifths for Godzilla VS. Kong, and it sounds great. Again, too much talking of either "originality" or "proper methods", but not enough discussion on how well music works for a story. What's wrong with VI Control?


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 22, 2021)

Dude… this is an inquiry into common practice, not Kong vs Godzilla or how to make braaaaham or how to voice #13 chords in big band.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 22, 2021)

It’s like “hey guys how do you write sonata form” and getting a response “pfftt whats wrong with you?! Havent you seen the latest season of The Bachelor?!?! No somata form there! Lolololzzz!”


----------



## Gene Pool (May 22, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> The most compelling explanation came from @Gene Pool and @Dr. Shagwell who proposed that in the example, Williams made the choice in order to best preserve the tessitura of (in this case) the bass trombone.


Just to clarify out of fairness to Shagswell, he's the only one who put it in explicit terms. My only part related to that was what could have been inferred from my commenting on the alternate voicings you posted.

And reflecting now, I was for some reason dwelling more on the JW power chords (planing of root position major chords) that punctuated the phrase boundaries rather than the particular voicings as such, and might have been writing somewhat at cross-purposes to your primary focus.

Good luck with this inquiry. It's a good one.

And just remember, it's Brahms, not Braaaaaams.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 22, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> Just to clarify out of fairness to Shagswell, he's the only one who put it in explicit terms. My only part related to that was what could have been inferred from my commenting on the alternate voicings you posted.
> 
> And reflecting now, I was for some reason dwelling more on the JW power chords (planing of root position major chords) that punctuated the phrase boundaries rather than the particular voicings as such, and might have been writing somewhat at cross-purposes to your primary focus.
> 
> Good luck with this inquiry. It's a good one.



Ahh that's right. You may have some insight here, but was this punctuation maneuver ever used by JW's film composer predecessors/teachers?



Gene Pool said:


> And just remember, it's Brahms, not Braaaaaams.


Ha!


----------



## Farkle (May 22, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> As the title suggests, orchestration seems to be a common exemption for weak voice leading in film music. Interest in the topic spurred from a thread regarding strict following of *common practice* voice leading in John Williams scores in one moment, then without cause abandoning it the next moment.
> 
> For reference, that thread can be read here: https://vi-control.net/community/threads/things-in-jw-scores-that-do-not-make-sense.106846/
> 
> ...



John Williams is not a common practice composer. He's a jazz arranger and composer. The rules of jazz are not common practice rules. To me, this is putting a square peg in a round hole.

Having said that, thinking about the overtone series, and building a resonant structure, often involves "parallel 5ths" in the lower voices, to build a foundation of harmony in the orchestral stack as JW moves from chord to chord. Thinking of it about resonant/building structures, is probably a better way to interpret John's parallel motion, than "bad voice leading".

Mike


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 22, 2021)

Farkle said:


> John Williams is not a common practice composer. He's a jazz arranger and composer. The rules of jazz are not common practice rules."



Interesting… you see the ESB "Astroid Field" cue as jazz music? I’m not sure many have considered that interpretation.

EDIT:
Voicing a tuba on the root note, then the bass trombone on the 5th, and the two tenor trombones on the 3rd and doubling the root or 5th, is an imbalanced voicing in terms of color and power. Is a weak root a tenet of jazz?


----------



## Farkle (May 22, 2021)

Well, one other has. Talk to Brad (FilmScoreAnalysis), and he'll probably agree with me.


----------



## Farkle (May 22, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Interesting… you see the ESB astroid field cue as jazz music. I’m not sure many have considered that interpretation.


In my view, jazz is a language, not a genre. Just like CP is a language not a genre. 18th century composers "used" common practice theory to write minuets, bagatelles, waltzes, scherzos, etc. All different "forms and genres", all using the same rules. Johnny is using a different set of rules (Jazz harmony and voiceleading), to write waltzes, action music, love themes, etc. I think most people blend the two, and there's no need.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 22, 2021)

Sorry, was editing my initial response as these two came in.

Did you flip through the original thread? The issue is the establishing of common practice writing in a cue or score, and then at _seemingly_ random points, opting to break those rules, without something dramatic on screen or musical justifying the abandonment of the common practice rules to which are _always_ strictly adhered.


----------



## Farkle (May 22, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Interesting… you see the ESB "Astroid Field" cue as jazz music? I’m not sure many have considered that interpretation.
> 
> EDIT:
> Voicing a tuba on the root note, then the bass trombone on the 5th, and the two tenor trombones on the 3rd and doubling the root or 5th, is an imbalanced voicing in terms of color and power. Is a weak root a tenet of jazz?


It's not imbalanced at all. It follows the overtone series. Root (tuba), 5th, (Bass Tbn), and 10th (tenor Tbn) is phenomenal in energy (look at Jerry Goldsmith and Alan Silvestri scores). the highest trombone doubling root or 5th is just extra goodness. The bottom three notes (1-5-10) is where the magic is. It's SUPER robust. Look at James Horner's stuff from Krull, ST 2, ST 3, Rocketeer. It's all over the place there. Don't worry about the 4th note in the upper trombone, look at the bottom three notes in the stack. That's where the balance is.


----------



## Farkle (May 22, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Sorry, was editing my initial response as these two came in.
> 
> Did you flip through the original thread? The issue is the establishing of common practice writing in a cue or score, and then at _seemingly_ random points, opting to break those rules, without something dramatic on screen or musical justifying the abandonment of the common practice rules to which are _always_ strictly adhered.


Yeah. Back to jazz. That one moment where you observed John drop a major second, from like a D to a C root, and you said, "Well, why does he plane, when he could have had the top tbn go up to the root, not down to the 5th". That's jazz right there. When moving down or up a min 2nd or maj 2nd, they'll often plane the tones in jazz, and that's a "no no" in CP. So, there's a great example of you looking at a voicing, and trying to apply CP to it, when John wasn't even using that language.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 22, 2021)

Farkle said:


> It's not imbalanced at all.


Tuba does not equal trombone. 😉 Two different beasts in terms of color. See Tchaikovsky, or Don Davis' _Matrix_, Mahler, Wagner, Prokofiev, etc... 99% of the time bass trombone and tuba are in octaves or unison. Tuba really is closer to the french horn family than trombone/trumpet, which is why they all do that.



Farkle said:


> So, there's a great example of you looking at a voicing, and trying to apply CP to it, when John wasn't even using that language.


Perhaps that's the disconnect -- JW is using the common practice language dogmatically for 400 bars of Astroid Field music, then abandons it for one chord, then returns to dogmatic common practice. Jazz quotation perhaps? Doesn't seem fitting in a space "opera."

Also, I have not seen big Silvestri score cues, but is he really not doubling the tuba with bass trombone in big tutti sections?


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 22, 2021)

...in one sense the idea of tessitura being related to voice leading as mentioned should not be a thing. Registral differences can be exploited on purpose if one writes _for_ an orchestra as opposed to the scoring being at a later stage in the work.
You can find many examples of instruments at their extremes in great scores, often related to dynamics and high intensity expression, or perhaps for effect, but not always. The point being that such cases are _purposely_ scored - integral to the actual composing in fact - and as such composers ensure that appropriate voice leading in all aspects is adhered to.

If by strict common practice, you mean species and baroque contrapuntal writing and harmony, then I'd say that when you know how to write for lines that well, you'll also know when to break them for expressive purposes because your instincts will have been honed. In fact one can ignore CP for creative orchestration but only if you know how to do it. As long as the individual part is practical, appropriate and makes good musical sense, a player will feel it.

From that, it follows too that the more you know about what each instrument is capable of technically speaking, the more you can draw on that knowledge as a creative resource whilst writing.


----------



## Gene Pool (May 22, 2021)

Watched the whole video. Really well done and professional. I hit the like/subscribe buttons.

Yeah, with respect to C.P.P. voice leading, it’s all about avoiding the “objectionable” parallels, understanding the levels of “severity” (for lack of a better word) of the fence sitters, and understanding voice leading well enough to know when and why a standard principle can be overruled by one that prevails at the moment.

BTW, one of those Brahms examples, I think it was 48, was a “slide” in NRT. Both chords having the same same 3rd as a common tone is one of those mitigators.



Stephen Limbaugh said:


> ...was this punctuation maneuver ever used by JW's film composer predecessors/teachers?


His prominent use of parallel major triads was a signature part of his harmonic language in the _good_ Star Wars trilogy. Didn't get 'em from jazz arranging; those usually come from diatonic or chromatic approach or constant structure voicing, usually extended chords, not triads, and come in all inversions. I’d say he picked 'em up from Mars where they're very prominent, and Mars was a part of the original Lucas concept for going the Kubrick route until JW talked him out of it. In Mars they're just like JW used them all over Star Wars, close position major triads in root position, except not so close in the lower bass clef range of course.

I'll be posting another score excerpt breakdown next week when I can to the ongoing thread here about instrument choice, and it's going to a bit from _Rescue of the Princess_. It's like a JW power chord convention, but I don’t know if you'll find the context relevant to your curiosities in this regard.
____________________

This quote from Tchaikovsky is apt:

_I positively avoid [parallel] fifths and octaves myself, except for cases where it is obvious to everyone that they are used intentionally, for the sake of characteristic effect.

—_Tchaikovsky


----------



## Gene Pool (May 22, 2021)

Yeah, with respect to C.P.P. voice leading, the issue is avoiding the _objectionable_ types of parallel fifths and octaves (including the physiological reason they _can_ be objectionable per the context)as opposed to _all_ apparent parallel fifths and octaves, understanding the levels of “severity” (for lack of a better word) of the fence sitters, and understanding voice leading well enough to know when and why a standard principle can be overruled by one that prevails at the moment.

BTW, one of those Brahms examples, I think it was 48, is a “slide” in NRT. Both chords having the same 3rd as a common tone is one of those mitigators.



Stephen Limbaugh said:


> ...was this punctuation maneuver ever used by JW's film composer predecessors/teachers?


His prominent use of parallel major triads was a signature part of his harmonic language in the _good_ Star Wars trilogy. Didn't get 'em from jazz arranging; those usually come from parallel or diatonic or chromatic approach or constant structure voicing, usually extended chords, not triads, all flavors, and come in all inversions. I’d say he was influenced by their use in Mars where they're very prominent, and Mars was a part of the original Lucas concept for going the Kubrick route until JW talked him out of it. In Mars they're just like JW used them all over Star Wars, close position major triads in root position, except not so close in the lower bass clef range of course.

I'll be posting another score excerpt breakdown next week when I can to the ongoing thread here about instrument choice, and it's going to a bit from _Rescue of the Princess_. It's like a JW power chord convention, but I don’t know if you'll find the context relevant to your curiosities in this regard.
____________________

This quote from Tchaikovsky is apt:

_I positively avoid [parallel] fifths and octaves myself, except for cases where it is obvious to everyone that they are used intentionally, for the sake of characteristic effect.

—_Tchaikovsky


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 22, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> I positively avoid [parallel] fifths and octaves myself, except for cases where it is obvious to everyone that they are used intentionally, for the sake of characteristic effect.


Yes but was this just to keep himself in good standing with the Tsar and The Mighty Five? 😅


----------



## Dr. Shagwell (May 23, 2021)

Nice to see the quest continues! Good for you. 

I am not a John Williams scholar, or even a "FAN", but if I were in your shoes:

Investigate 3 possible outcomes: All of which can be tested on your own to draw your own conclusion 

1. He just missed it: Even Stravinsky re-orchestrated his Firebird years later. You can test by coming up with your own alternate voice-leading outcomes. Do any sound better to your ears?

2. The medium of film: What is happening at that moment in the film. You can't really divorce film music from the film itself. Of paramount importance is what sound is happening around the music. 
If one were to watch the original Robin Hood that Korngold scored, and compared with say Black Hawk Down, the amount of sound in the film is worlds apart. ** The following is a principle reason why the tessitura is given precedent: The mixer will turn down your music if it is causing interference. Having worked as an orchestrator myself on a few large Hollywood films, I can tell you this is front of mind. You quickly learn why some "Recipes" get used. For example with full brass/tutti hits avoid the 3rd in the strings. It'll just get lost, and if your music "cuts" then you might even get the rare "turn up the music" in the mix. The tessitura thing is sometimes dictated by the constraints of the medium. Think of it as a "barter".

So ideally to test this you would have the scene with all sound design/foli and see if alternate voicings make a difference. 


3. Not every moment is structural.

I come from a Schenkerian background. I found it very informative. 


Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Perhaps that's the disconnect -- JW is using the common practice language dogmatically for 400 bars of Astroid Field music, then abandons it for one chord, then returns to dogmatic common practice.


You have to look at where he picks it back up. In the strictest sense voice leading is by step.
One concept I found useful was the idea of "Hanging pitches" as a way to create large-scale arches. 
I learned this concept from a student of Nadia Boulanger whilst studying at Julliard (Did I name drop enough?) His book with this concept can be seen here https://www.rasseleditions.com/the-spiraling-tapestry

Basically, one has to consider if there has been a register change and thus a hidden and implied rest (or sustain) that lingers in the ear. Thus the top note might not always be viewed as the soprano, just because it is the top note. 

Basically, I would begin by defining what is structurally important and what is surface decoration. 

I don't know the cue well in question, but you might find there is actually a beneath-the-surface structure that allows for deviations. Look for step-wise motion. 

Unfortunately, it's impossible for me to go thru the theory in its entirety. But I can show you an example of what I mean. We can see that the opening 2:00 is clearly step-wise motion, even though on the surface there is more activity. (The bottom staff shows what is structural) What I am suggesting (This author does not) is the B (measures 3 and 5) lingers in the ear while the E is being sounded. Therefore the B's voice leading is connected to the Bb at the first 3/4 bar. How you can test this out is by singing. Most people will have a memory of the B and first, locate that B pitch to find the Bb.


----------



## Farkle (May 23, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Tuba does not equal trombone. 😉 Two different beasts in terms of color. See Tchaikovsky, or Don Davis' _Matrix_, Mahler, Wagner, Prokofiev, etc... 99% of the time bass trombone and tuba are in octaves or unison. Tuba really is closer to the french horn family than trombone/trumpet, which is why they all do that.
> 
> 
> Perhaps that's the disconnect -- JW is using the common practice language dogmatically for 400 bars of Astroid Field music, then abandons it for one chord, then returns to dogmatic common practice. Jazz quotation perhaps? Doesn't seem fitting in a space "opera."
> ...


In fact, that is exactly what Silvestri does in big scores. Bar 32, Night at the Museum. Alan lays a chord down. Tuba on Low C, Bass Trombone on G, Tenor Trombone on E. 1 - 5 - 10 Spread Voicing. 

It's not about quoting "jazz", it's about building up harmonies through the overtone series.


----------



## NoamL (May 23, 2021)

In those tutti moments, the orchestration role of the low brass is adding power and richness, not having people follow the 4 voices like a chamber quartet. The strongest voicing for any given moment is the right one. That C G E G style voicing, or C C E G voicing, are both really powerful for the low brass quartet. The open space at the bottom creates this big... "architectural"? ... feeling in the music. If you close it up it doesn't feel as huge. If the voice leading tells you to close it up... why do that if it goes against the orchestration purpose? JW I think comes from a school that says orchestration determines material and vice versa.

In the style he writes in, the most important voice leading to manage is the tension tones. So like in a m7b5 chord, he'll be very careful about where the 5th and 7th go next. But for triads, he'll happily plane them. That's just my observation. 

I guess there are two ways to look at voice leading, one is that you follow (a long set of rigorous) principles which preserves the independence of all the voices, and the other is that you follow (a smaller set) of principles where the sequence of tension and release is easily comprehended.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 23, 2021)

Farkle said:


> Bar 32, Night at the Museum. Alan lays a chord down. Tuba on Low C, Bass Trombone on G, Tenor Trombone on E. 1 - 5 - 10 Spread Voicing.


Well, I can say categorically that is suboptimal orchestration*. Not “bad” of course, but suboptimal.

*if the desire is for optimal resonance based on the overtone series, which requires the root to have the most weight.


----------



## NoamL (May 23, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Well, I can say categorically that is suboptimal orchestration*. Not “bad” of course, but suboptimal.



Stephen I've heard your music and you're good at what you do, but I'm gonna take Conrad Pope's opinion here.


----------



## CT (May 23, 2021)

NoamL said:


> Stephen I've heard your music and you're good at what you do, but I'm gonna take Conrad Pope's opinion here.


Are we just talking about whether or not the tuba can sufficiently take the lowest voice in a chord without doubling a trombone in unison or at the octave? In that case a very quick review of some scores I recalled as having possible examples shows that Don Davis, John Adams, Jerry Goldsmith, Richard Strauss, Richard Wagner, and Igor Stravinsky, at least, also agree with Mr. Pope. 

Did these composers make the "suboptimal" choice? I would think that what is "optimal" depends heavily on the context of a given, perhaps very fleeting, musical moment, not merely on what physical acoustic law might suggest. Much like principles of voice leading, one needs to be wary of becoming so proscriptive, based on what chosen models seem to permit as "optimal," as to be unable to write or indeed listen without slavish pedantry. 

I don't know the asteroid field cue by heart, but if there truly is just that single digression from "the rules" in it, I certainly understand the curiosity about why John made that choice. As for whether or not tessitura, or anything, is an acceptable excuse for deviating from the strictures of common practice writing... I think it depends on who you are. Are you a student being graded on how well you complete an exercise following those strictures? You should follow them. Are you John Williams, or Brahms, or one of the countless anonymous but fully competent composers out there who is not in desperate need of technical scolding? Go for it. Have some cookies before dinner, while you're at it. Who do you have to answer to but yourself... and, maybe, VI-Control?


----------



## Farkle (May 23, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Well, I can say categorically that is suboptimal orchestration*. Not “bad” of course, but suboptimal.
> 
> *if the desire is for optimal resonance based on the overtone series, which requires the root to have the most weight.





Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Well, I can say categorically that is suboptimal orchestration*. Not “bad” of course, but suboptimal.
> 
> *if the desire is for optimal resonance based on the overtone series, which requires the root to have the most we





Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Well, I can say categorically that is suboptimal orchestration*. Not “bad” of course, but suboptimal.
> 
> *if the desire is for optimal resonance based on the overtone series, which requires the root to have the most weight.


Well, you seem to have made up your mind. You asked for an example of Alan doing that voicing, I provided it to you, and your immediate response was, "Well, that's a bad voicing".

It's apparent you don't want a discussion, but just want to be right. Please, be right. Argue with this guy, who did the orchestration for that film... and about 40 others. I'd love to hear you defend your point with him.









John Ashton Thomas - IMDb


John Ashton Thomas. Music Department: The Maze Runner. John Ashton Thomas was born on 28 March 1961 in Plymouth, Devon, England, UK. John Ashton was a composer, known for The Maze Runner (2014), Tenet (2020) and X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014). John Ashton died on 4 October 2021 in the UK.




www.imdb.com





As for me, honestly, I don't have time to argue voice leading Common Practice versus Contemporary film scores. I have work to do. You asked for an example of Alan doing the Tuba/Bass Trombone not in octaves. I immediately gave you one. You said (and I quote) "that is categorically suboptimal orchestraion". So, you already had your mind made up as to the validity of that voicing. Enjoy your sense of victory.

Mike


----------



## Farkle (May 23, 2021)

Farkle said:


> Well, you seem to have made up your mind. You asked for an example of Alan doing that voicing, I provided it to you, and your immediate response was, "Well, that's a bad voicing".
> 
> It's apparent you don't want a discussion, but just want to be right. Please, be right. Argue with this guy, who did the orchestration for that film... and about 40 others. I'd love to hear you defend your point with him.
> 
> ...


Oh right, Conrad Pope was also involved. Thanks for the heads up, Noam! 

Feel free to argue that with him.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 23, 2021)

Mike T said:


> Don Davis


…real quick… will post more later.

*The entire Matrix score has the tuba doubled with a cimbasso. 🤠 That mitigates the difference in power/color.


----------



## CT (May 23, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> …real quick… will post more later.
> 
> *The entire Matrix score has the tuba doubled with a cimbasso. 🤠 That mitigates the difference in power/color.


I see numerous indications for the player to switch from one to the other, but the instance I was referring to was indeed a tuba part. Interestingly, just a few bars later, he asks for the cimbasso in the same role. There would have been time (I think) to make the switch during a later pause before moving into a more beefy part, but he wanted it before, for whatever reason.

On second thought, I think that's exactly why he asks for the switch where he does: just to be safe and make sure the player has enough time, as the earlier break is longer than the later one is. In that case, I think it might be reasonable to assume that dynamics were a part of Davis' considerations about how to handle the question of tuba blend/balance. Tuba for the bottom voice of softer low brass chords, cimbasso for the aggressive loud stuff.


----------



## cygnusdei (May 23, 2021)

Not even Bach was immune from faux pas. From BWV 848:


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 23, 2021)

Cursory scan of Silvestri’s Captain America score… 90% of the time the bass trombone(s) are in unison or octaves with the tuba. Soft and loud chords alike.

The instances where this is not the case is when the tuba is doing something completely different (ex, quarter note ostinato pedal notes and trombones doing totally different parts), or, of course clusters.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 23, 2021)

Here’s a great example of how to maximize the _resonance_ of the overtones in low brass — critical here is the fact that the tenors are not in the duller parts of their register, but, that the tuba and bass trombone are in unisons or octaves.

https://imslp.simssa.ca/files/imglnks/usimg/2/23/IMSLP30702-PMLP16220-Bruckner-WAB108FSeu.pdf
It is hard to come up with a more “optimal” low brass resonance than Bruckner’s orchestration. As this relates to JW’s Astroid Field cue, *and this is an important point*, is that the errant parallel motion into a suboptimal voicing was evidence that tessitura (as it is intended to bring out extra “resonance”) may not have been the reason for that choice.

Also, flip through this Nino Rota—the tuba is essentially not as much part of the brass section as much as it is a boost for the double basses. On a lot of the big stuff, it’s just straight up left out. Very cool approach.

https://en.schott-music.com/shop/pdfviewer/index/readfile/?idx=MTMxNzEz&idy=131713


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 23, 2021)

Mike T said:


> Tuba for the bottom voice of softer low brass chords, cimbasso for the aggressive loud stuff.


Totally. Just like piano/pianissimo french horn can go 1-1 with any woodwind. I missed the switches (!!!!!) but it really makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 23, 2021)

Farkle said:


> You asked for an example of Alan doing that voicing,


Can you screenshot and post this example? I can’t find the score.


----------



## Farkle (May 24, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Cursory scan of Silvestri’s Captain America score… 90% of the time the bass trombone(s) are in unison or octaves with the tuba. Soft and loud chords alike.
> 
> The instances where this is not the case is when the tuba is doing something completely different (ex, quarter note ostinato pedal notes and trombones doing totally different parts), or, of course clusters.


Yes, but you need to ask yourself why is the tuba and bass trombone doubling at octave. For example, your second scan (kept attached here) has the tuba and trombone in G octaves. Well, look at the upper trombones, they're the 5th and root of an Eb chord. That means the third is in the bass. So, you wouldn't put the bass/bottom trombone on the 5th (bB) above the Tuba's G, because that violates (wait for it) jazz lower limit voicings. The G octave isn't there for color doubling. The G octave is there because that's how you double properly in low harmonies/bass harmonies when the third is the bass of the vertical structure.

yes, you did post other examples of the tuba and bass trombone in octaves, but it's certainly not always "because of color". And again, that voicing is explained in jazz theory. 

Also, here's the screenshot I told you about. Bar 32 of the Night at the Museum Overture/Main Theme.

This is also off topic from your original post, so I'm not sure why we're still discussing this.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 24, 2021)

Wait… so Silvestri is a jazz guy too? That is the first I have heard of that. 🤔

re Captain America, the claim is that the doubling of tuba bass trombone is about the _balance_ of a brass chord, not necessarily the coloring, though it is under consideration. 

re Night of the Museum, is that the Conrad Pope orchestration or is that the Silvestri sketch?


----------



## ryans (May 24, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Wait… so Silvestri is a jazz guy too?


Oh god yes. Granted my personal definition of Jazz is quite broad but all Silvestri's work is dripping with it, not just his early work.

Also I've been following the thread and really admiring your tenacity in this (as a fellow Williams obsessor)


----------



## Smikes77 (May 24, 2021)

Wasn`t Silvestri a well educated jazz guitarist?


----------



## ryans (May 24, 2021)

Smikes77 said:


> Wasn`t Silvestri a well educated jazz guitarist?


I think drums was his primary instrument, as a player.


----------



## Smikes77 (May 24, 2021)

ryans said:


> I think drums was his primary instrument, as a player.


I think he did guitar too. Just found this.

*1. How did you become a film composer?*

I became a film composer by default. It was never in any kind of master plan. I was a drummer as a kid and then I started playing guitar and became interested in writing. I had bands in junior high school and high school, and worked on weekends playing dances. My main dream was to be a wonderful bebop guitar player…but one thing led to the next.

I wound up in Los Angles. I had been an arranger since I was a kid, although it was more big band jazz than orchestral. But a crazy thing happened. I was asked to go to a meeting about a film that was in need of a score. I had never thought about film scoring. I went out and bought a book on film scoring the night before my meeting and went through the book and an accompanying record, then I went to the meeting, and I got to score the film, which was called _The Doberman Gang_, about five dogs trained to rob a bank. That was the beginning for me.


----------



## youngpokie (May 24, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> 99% of the time bass trombone and tuba are in octaves or unison.


Voicing of trombone and tube, octave or not, would depend on the rest of that chord in brass.

Some instruments have the range that's more even in sound quality and dynamics across their tessitura (such as SATB choir) and some are not (such as brass). It's impossible to achieve well-balanced chord in brass (or woodwinds) without considering the tessitura. Below are examples for _f_ and _ff_ brass chord voicings that guarantee sonic balance - all from common practice period. Upper registers rather tight, lower registers often spaced (hence trombone and tuba).










I think your premise could be revised:

- Adherence to voice leading ranges from strict (SATB) to contextual (orchestra) to wide open (solo piano music post Baroque, with 2 hands only and whatnot)

- Many types of instrument combinations in orchestra do not perform polyphonic function and therefore voice leading does not apply. Melody doubled _simultaneously_ in thirds, fifths, octaves etc will look like a chord moving in parallels but it is still perfectly acceptable

- Voice leading is necessary in parts or episodes that have explicit polyphonic nature. However, proper voice leading often results in totally unbalanced sound of such episode, because of problems with tessitura (especially dynamics in range extremes).

The most common solution to this in Common Practice Period was to double the weakest voices. Which means that some instruments will be switching from doubling the melody (no voice leading, thank you) now - to doubling a chord voice (voice leading) next...

(Of course it's also possible that some film composers simply don't want to bother with voice leading)


----------



## CT (May 24, 2021)

Smikes77 said:


> _The Doberman Gang_, about five dogs trained to rob a bank.


I need to see this now.


----------



## Gene Pool (May 24, 2021)

Farkle said:


> Yes, but you need to ask yourself why is the tuba and bass trombone doubling at octave. For example, your second scan (kept attached here) has the tuba and trombone in G octaves. Well, look at the upper trombones, they're the 5th and root of an Eb chord. That means the third is in the bass. So, you wouldn't put the bass/bottom trombone on the 5th (bB) above the Tuba's G, because that violates (wait for it) jazz lower limit voicings.


This is the kind of topic that can get a little confused pretty easily because inevitably each person will wind up emphasizing a different aspect of any one thing as different items come up and it becomes like one of those weird snake mating knots.

Anyway, whether for the concert stage or scoring stage, the LIL guides used for big band arranging don't apply to orchestral writing (although there's certainly nothing preventing anyone from using them thusly, though that would be very limiting).

None of this has to do with jazz theory, so I think this is a case of correlation not equaling causation. The precedents for everything under discussion go a ways back.

The hyper-abbreviated version of low interval concerns in orchestral writing includes many factors, mainly: orchestration, range of expression and intent, texture, instrument acoustics, tempo, dynamics, chord duration, etc.

Composers were managing these decisions in the orchestra a long time before someone codified the big band LIL's by surveying a wide array of arrangers and arrangements back in the 50's. The LIL's are a "common practice" guide mainly for big band and combo writing, and there's also a modified version some pop arrangers use in the pop realm.

Moreover, if LIL's were the guide in orchestral writing then you wouldn't have countless routine instances where they were obviously not a factor in the decisions of the composer or orchestrator, either in the concert stage or scoring stage.

But as you correctly noted, that particular voicing would be the default approach in scoring a first inversion triad for five low brasses, since you'll screw up your resonance if you double the bass of a first inversion major triad in the upper voices, exceptional cases notwithstanding.

This is all aside from Stephen's concern over the fifths-heavy voicing in _The Asteroid Field_ cue. Stephen is correct about the voicing not being optimally resonant, *if isolated in and of itself*. If your goal were to model a 4-part root position triad on the harmonic series, you'd obviously have two roots, and one each of the remaining chord tones, not two fifths, one third, and a root for mellow tuba alone. So, with an eye towards keeping everything in the bass clef, the harmonic series-based version would obviously be either C2—C3—E3—G3 or C2—G2—C3—E3, depending on your preference at that point.

But, where I differ with Stephen is in whether optimal resonance should have been the primary goal of the voicing. The three-part texture of this section is obviously very, very melody heavy. Then you have some background harmonic support that should just "be there" and nothing more noticeable. And lastly the obligatory descant high woodwind filigree.

The way JW carried this out supports that intent. The harmonic support shouldn't be anything more than what it is with respect to the soaring, adventurous melody. Moreover, a big concern during a scene like this is the the merciless sound effects tracks, which of course take precedence. Increasing the resonance when it's not critical to the underscore can get you pulled back in the mix pretty easily. The only time JW ever goes full Strauss is when it's fitting and he knows he's got the mix pretty much all to himself, main titles and scenes not dependent on dialog and sound effects.

As for the signature Star Wars series parallel major chords (parallel in the cumulative) in that climactic section, they each happen on the last note of the big soaring phrase, three times in a row, first and last being the same chromatic mediant relationship. JW power chords where they belong.


----------



## Farkle (May 24, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Wait… so Silvestri is a jazz guy too? That is the first I have heard of that. 🤔
> 
> re Captain America, the claim is that the doubling of tuba bass trombone is about the _balance_ of a brass chord, not necessarily the coloring, though it is under consideration.
> 
> re Night of the Museum, is that the Conrad Pope orchestration or is that the Silvestri sketch?


Yes, Silvestri studied Jazz at Berklee. Prior to him doing hollywood and that LOVELY score to the Doberman movies. He also scored CHIPS (the TV show).

Re: Night at the museum, don't know, but that looks like the conductor score, so my guess is Pope orchestration. My guess, though.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 24, 2021)

All of this is fascinating. 

One thing mentioned a few times has been the choice against “optimal” resonance due to conflict with sound fx. This is slowly making more sense the more thought I give it, and how this reality classifies as one of the more frustrating aspects of scoring film. 😆

Another thought about the genesis of film scoring choices: what happens in American wind ensemble/wind band music and how some of those choices creeped onto the scoring stage.

I have not played in or heard a wind band in a very long time, but my recollection is that common practice polyphonic limitations were essentially thrown out the window after John Philip Souza.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 24, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> Voicing of trombone and tube, octave or not, would depend on the rest of that chord in brass.



Is this from the Rimsky-Korsakov? There are some examples there where he shows 3 chords, and labels them “bad” “good” and “better.” There are probably some instances, to prevent errant parallel motion where the solo tuba must in fact hold the bass, and if one finds himself in that predicament this is should suffice. There is a passage specifically about that somewhere in there—that the part writing is more important than the orchestration.


----------



## youngpokie (May 24, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> There are probably some instances, to prevent errant parallel motion where the solo tuba must in fact hold the bass, and if one finds himself in that predicament this is should suffice.


I am not making excuses for bad voice leading, but at the same I think demanding chorale style polyphonic voice leading from orchestral music in any context is not just unreasonable but misguided.

Earlier I gave an example where _any_ type of parallel motion is perfectly acceptable in orchestral writing - doubling of melodies in intervals. Since you ignored it, let me try an illustration: Ravel's Bolero.






And what about melodies going in parallel octaves? That's been done for as long as there's music....

Again, the issue you're making here about voice leading applies to one context: connecting voices of closely spaced chords, the most basic SATB-like scenario imaginable in orchestration.

Everything else is context dependent.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 24, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> I think demanding chorale style polyphonic voice leading from orchestral music in any context is not just unreasonable but misguided.
> 
> Earlier I gave an example where _any_ type of parallel motion is perfectly acceptable in orchestral writing - doubling of melodies in intervals. Since you ignored it, let me try an illustration: Ravel's Bolero.
> 
> ...



Uh… so we covered Bolero in the other thread mentioned in the initial post…. But you know doublings are not new voices right? And you know that common practice voice leading isn’t a device designed exclusively for chorales right? 

Again, (to everyone) I’m not “demanding” this for scores like King Kong fights Godzilla or any of that popcorn flick bullshit. It is recognizing that the canonical musical works of the last 350 years have adhered to a set of principles, and 90% of the time certain renown film composers adhere to those principles themselves. This is an inquiry into the 10% of the time they do not follow those rules. It’s nothing more than that. 

The other tangents have to do with certain premises, such as the role of the tuba in maximizing the power of fortissimo brass chords. But those tangents are merely to get on common footing in postulating the ultimate reason for those 10% choices. 

My guess is that there is real musical wisdom to be found in that 10%. And I thank Gene and Shag and Mike and others who are interested in more than “bro do what sounds good let your ears guide you.”


----------



## youngpokie (May 25, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> But you know doublings are not new voices right?


Well then, you just answered your own question - all you have to do to make parallel movement acceptable is call it a doubling. 

It will sound 100% identical to (bad) parallel voice leading, but now it doesn't count as a voice - so it's suddenly permissible. There, problem solved.

This is so unserious.


----------



## CT (May 25, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> Well then, you just answered your own question - all you have to do to make parallel movement acceptable is call it a doubling.
> 
> It will sound 100% identical to (bad) parallel voice leading, but now it doesn't count as a voice - so it's suddenly permissible. There, problem solved.
> 
> This is so unserious.


Is there not a difference between obvious textural parallel writing as in the Ravel example/obvious octave doubling, and more independent voices which briefly move in parallel motion without being intended to be heard as one of those two devices? It's not just a question of nomenclature.


----------



## youngpokie (May 25, 2021)

Mike T said:


> Is there not a difference between obvious textural parallel writing as in the Ravel example/obvious octave doubling, and more independent voices which briefly move in parallel motion without being intended to be heard as one of those two devices? It's not just a question of nomenclature.


For sure there is a difference. But it's not in calling some things "voices" and others "not voices" when they are both clearly forming chordal-type progressions. Sometimes it's not even instantly obvious which is which (Rapsodie Espangole and Scheherazade, for example) - they all look like chords and intervals and in those instances it's only when we use voice leading as a marker that we see the difference. Which is a circle that takes us back to the beginning. 

The problem with this entire debate is this presumption that SATB voice leading applies equally in every context in orchestral writing. It does not. Dismissing the glaring contradiction to this presumption in the case of parallel doubling in melody as "not voices" is not a winning argument. 

But even looking at the rest of this presumption, we have to admit that voice leading approach in orchestral writing is different and context dependent. We will of course apply strict voice leading to explicitly polyphonic material. But during a large chunk of CPP the most common application of orchestral voice leading is only to chords and we deliberately exclude the melody - the actual "S/ soprano" voice - from voice leading).


----------



## CT (May 25, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> But it's not in calling some things "voices" and others "not voices" when they are both clearly forming chordal-type progressions.


That's exactly where the difference is (independent voices/not independent voices, by the way, not just voices/not voices). As you say, it's all about context. Of course "SATB" principles don't always apply, but as I understand it Stephen is asking about examples where a composer HAS chosen to adhere to those principles quite closely and then breaks them in moments that are not easily explained as planing or simple octave reinforcement etc.

Not really sure of what the rest of your post is trying to say. Ah well.


----------



## youngpokie (May 25, 2021)

Mike T said:


> ... where a composer HAS chosen to adhere to those principles quite closely and then breaks them in moments that are not easily explained as planing or simple octave reinforcement etc.


The original question was why JW goes from parallel motion to "proper" voice leading and back again. The suggestion is he's breaking voice leading rules, or that things like tessitura generally can be used to justify bad/weak voice leading etc.

While that may well be, I contend that Example 1 is a figuration and Example 3 is a doubling - two of the (many) types of contexts where considerations other than voice leading rightly take precedence. We then have a lively debate about the primacy of voice leading, with one obvious contradiction to it being dismissed out of hand.



Mike T said:


> That's exactly where the difference is (independent voices/not independent voices, by the way, not just voices/not voices).


Well, I guess instead of looking at the context and asking if voice leading is a relevant issue here, it's certainly possible to say: - JW just felt like these are not independent voices, you know. That's not explaining anything at all, but oh well...

Anyway, I think I said all I wanted to say here. Cheers.


----------



## CT (May 25, 2021)

Yeah... I think either the thread has been lost or it's been pulled in a circle so it's impossible to tell where we are anymore.


----------



## Lawson. (May 25, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Dude… this is an inquiry into common practice, not Kong vs Godzilla or how to make braaaaham or how to voice #13 chords in big band.


I know this is pointless of me to say and you were just making an example, but #13 chords aren't a thing as that becomes the enharmonic equivalent of a b7. I think you meant b13.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 25, 2021)

Lawson. said:


> I know this is pointless of me to say and you were just making an example, but #13 chords aren't a thing as that becomes the enharmonic equivalent of a b7. I think you meant b13.


Proves my uselessness at jazz I readily admit! I swing like a brick! 😂🤦🏻‍♂️


----------



## chibear (May 25, 2021)

I’ve been following this thread with lots of confusion and amusement in no particular order. However going wayyy back to the OP, should the question of justifying ‘bad’ voice leading to accommodate tessitura also be examined conversely as should you leave tessitura to preserve ‘good’ voice leading? Semi-seriously that means, in leaving tessitura,the timbre of the note(s) will probably change noticeably, suddenly sticking out or being submerged in the chord affecting balance and the listeners attention.


----------



## Gene Pool (May 25, 2021)

Lawson. said:


> I know this is pointless of me to say and you were just making an example, but #13 chords aren't a thing as that becomes the enharmonic equivalent of a b7. I think you meant b13.


That's like saying you can't have a #9 because that's really a b3.

#13 chords _are_ a thing.

Neither common nor rare, they can occur on a chord with a major 7th.

The densest construction is:

Cma7(#9#11#13)

...but might be written as a poly chord:

Bma7
C


----------



## Gene Pool (May 25, 2021)

Lawson. said:


> I know this is pointless of me to say and you were just making an example, but #13 chords aren't a thing as that becomes the enharmonic equivalent of a b7. I think you meant b13.


That's like saying you can't have a #9 because that's really a b3.

#13 chords _are_ a thing.

Neither common nor rare, they can occur on a chord with a major 7th.

The densest construction is:

Cma7(#9#11#13)

...but might be written as a poly chord:

Bma7
C


----------



## Lawson. (May 25, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> That's like saying you can't have a #9 because that's really a b3.
> 
> #13 chords _are_ a thing.
> 
> ...


I was waiting if someone would call me out on that! 😄

That being said, I have never seen or heard of a #13 in jazz, due to the conflicting maj7/min7, as well as lack of suitable scales to work with it. At this point I’m legit curious if there are any examples you can point me to? And b3 vs #9 I would say are different beasts as you basically swap out the natural 9 for a b9 and #9 which work nicely with both a half-whole (octatonic) scale and the altered scale.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 26, 2021)

chibear said:


> However going wayyy back to the OP, should the question of justifying ‘bad’ voice leading to accommodate tessitura also be examined conversely as should you leave tessitura to preserve ‘good’ voice leading?


Ahh… my basic understanding of common practice is that (as asserted by Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov) there is a hierarchy, with the voice leading being properly sorted before orchestration takes place. This, as I understand, is because if there is bad voice leading, then even good orchestration can’t “fix” the piece. Sort of like, if there is a bad song but a great mixer mixes it, its still a bad song. Thus, examining from the other perspective, if I understand your inquiry correctly, was already exhausted by the masters 150 years ago.


----------



## Gene Pool (May 26, 2021)

It's not a lead sheet chord; don’t go scouring any Real Books. It’s an arranger's chord, for chromatic (dense) jazz treatment, reharm, voicings, color, etc. It only has major 7ths, no minor 9ths, unless you voice it weird. Line writing-wise you could use the scale _as is_ if you wanted to exploit the character of those gaps. If you wanted something more fluid you’d use one of the minor bebop scales. I’m rusty, but prolly one of the aeolian or dorian versions.

Haven’t catalogued poly-chords in my head except for some by Stravinsky, but they were scored for strings somewhere on _Hot House Flowers_ (Marsalis) which Bob Freedman arranged with some amount of Bartok influence in mind. I recall Gil Evans using them among other poly-chords, and Lieberman I think.


----------



## chibear (May 26, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Ahh… my basic understanding of common practice is that (as asserted by Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov) there is a hierarchy, with the voice leading being properly sorted before orchestration takes place. This, as I understand, is because if there is bad voice leading, then even good orchestration can’t “fix” the piece. Sort of like, if there is a bad song but a great mixer mixes it, its still a bad song. Thus, examining from the other perspective, if I understand your inquiry correctly, was already exhausted by the masters 150 years ago.


Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov didn’t use DAWs. I may be in the minority, as I usually am on these forums, but in my workflow composition and orchestration take place pretty much simultaneously. Secondly “common practice” gradually left the room through the 20th Century unless you’re writing chorales.

However my point, which seems to have been missed, is that leaving tessitura can often change colour and balance of chords so that moving a trombone into pedal tones or clarinets into throat tones can be quite distracting for a listener or frustrating for a conductor trying to balance a passage.


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 26, 2021)

chibear said:


> Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov didn’t use DAWs. I may be in the minority, as I usually am on these forums, but in my workflow composition and orchestration take place pretty much simultaneously. ........


Well you are not alone in that @chibear on this forum. I'm guessing JW is part of that minority you speak of too.


----------



## Dave Connor (May 26, 2021)

The re-statement or abstraction of _classical _devices and principles has been common in art for ages. Whether the U.S. Capitol building or Stravinsky’s, The Rakes Progress. In the case of that Mozartian infused Opera I *think* you have an adherence to traditional voice-leading but with quite a bending of the content. In fact it is probably most likely that the content is what would occasionally _prevent _traditional voice-leading with the jettisoning of diatonic movement and the like.

This may be the gist of this topic in that it seems traditional treatment of things such as voice-leading are adhered to in modern music to _various degrees_. Particularly when _period music _is needed, but even then you may find all kinds of exceptions. In the case of JW’s parallel brass chords, the fact that he wasn’t uniformly strict in the manner of Strauss and co., is hardly a surprise. He uses the Strauss orchestra, orchestration, and even language so thoroughly, a small exception would hardly be noticed.

Star Wars is a _period piece _though. It’s also a _theatre piece. _JW essentially wrote a swashbuckler using Strauss via Korngold. Since he has all those traditional chops your aren’t going to find any red-letter weaknesses. At the same time he’s going to bring his stamp to things using those golden ears to change things up here and there.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell (May 27, 2021)

Dave Connor said:


> In the case of JW’s parallel brass chords



These were a part of his vocabulary for a long time before SW.

Theme by Johnny Williams




Or from his concert pieces


----------



## Dave Connor (May 27, 2021)

Dr. Shagwell said:


> These were a part of his vocabulary for a long time before SW.
> 
> Theme by Johnny Williams
> 
> ...



I have no doubt : ) Didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (May 27, 2021)

I hate when anyone says we should avoid parallel intervals. The only reason to avoid parallels is when you don't want something to sound like a single unit. 

The ONLY 'issue' with parallel fifths and octaves, is that the two(or more) act as a single voice. But this is also a perfectly valid way to thicken a component - so why do we keep saying that?

How many times am I going to have to debunk this? It's no less shitty advise than you'll find in a beginner theory book that tells you to harmonize your melody with I IV V chords.


----------



## Dave Connor (May 27, 2021)

ProfoundSilence said:


> I hate when anyone says we should avoid parallel intervals. The only reason to avoid parallels is when you don't want something to sound like a single unit.
> 
> The ONLY 'issue' with parallel fifths and octaves, is that the two(or more) act as a single voice. But this is also a perfectly valid way to thicken a component - so why do we keep saying that?
> 
> How many times am I going to have to debunk this? It's no less shitty advise than you'll find in a beginner theory book that tells you to harmonize your melody with I IV V chords.


Unless of course one is pursuing a particular _sound. _The pursuit of a particular sound trumps all other considerations seems to me.

If you want the authentic sound of {say} Gregorian chant in a church setting, you would use male voices only in a very ambient space. That wouldn’t be enough of course as you would also have to closely mimic the _writing _common to that practice: write modally etc.

Same for a church choir from Bach’s time, including adhering to the compositional laws governing that era such as avoidance of parallel fifths. Which is really a scientific principle that is not inherently bad (certainly there were many who thought it was inherently good.) In any case there is a resultant sound which one could be very exacting about achieving - in observing it and other rules.

Or one could riff on it and employ some aspects (choir in ambient space - even done with a reverb unit) while ignoring other salient properties.

I agree that the imposition of that (parallel 5ths) rule on all music as a vital procedure is odd in this day and age.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 27, 2021)

@ProfoundSilence Since you have a Shostakovich avatar, lets try this...
























This is a passage with plenty of opportunities to utilize planing chords with parallel 5ths/octaves... for "dramatic effect" of course.

Why didn't he? And, why up to this point in the symphony, is there no errant parallel motion anywhere?


----------



## gussunkri (May 27, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> @ProfoundSilence Since you have a Shostakovich avatar, lets try this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I looooove that part! Just looking at that part almost brings tears to my eyes.

Anyways, please continue..


----------



## ProfoundSilence (May 27, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> @ProfoundSilence Since you have a Shostakovich avatar, lets try this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because he wants it to be clear that there is 1 melodic part and 1 harmonic part. 

The harmony not moving intervalically as a single unit makes it feel like a harmonic and rhythmic statement only. 

Likewise Tchaikovsky's dance of the Reed flutes has a melody completely embellished by planing triads while the harmony is supported by a simple vamp.

Showing that it's 1 melodic idea, but the harmony you hear is not the triads, it's the simple vamp.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (May 27, 2021)

gussunkri said:


> I looooove that part! Just looking at that part almost brings tears to my eyes.
> 
> Anyways, please continue..


I felt the same way for different reasons, I'm on my phone and can barely read it haha


----------



## Dave Connor (May 27, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> @ProfoundSilenceThis is a passage with plenty of opportunities to utilize planing chords with parallel 5ths/octaves... for "dramatic effect" of course.
> 
> Why didn't he? And, why up to this point in the symphony, is there no errant parallel motion anywhere?


That’s a very straightforward _chord progression. _Very exposed. It would amount to _laziness _if Shostakovich didn’t employ what are the very basics of joining chords in succession. He certainly wouldn’t want to defeat the smooth joining of chords with parallelisms when he is going to toss off textbook voice movement by second nature. He would essentially have to force himself do something like that.

You’ve certainly provided a context by which traditional technique *should* in fact rule the day. (I don’t see any real opportunities for planing etc., which would seem contrary to the intended sonority and psychology of the texture.)


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 27, 2021)

Dave Connor said:


> It would amount to _laziness _if Shostakovich didn’t employ what are the very basics of joining chords in succession.


This is how I feel.



Dave Connor said:


> (I don’t see any real opportunities for planing etc., which would seem contrary to the intended sonority and psychology of the texture.)


I suppose that I saw an "opportunity" to voice the chords with open perfect 5ths in the cellos when the melody moves on a big leap or something... an immediate shift up or down... but yeah, would sound dumb to my ears as well.



ProfoundSilence said:


> Because he wants it to be clear that there is 1 melodic part and 1 harmonic part.


...but the harmonic part has clear, individual voices... not just block chords and marking time. But it could have been written with block chords, and thrown out common practice technique... it however diligently follows all of the rules.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (May 27, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> This is how I feel.
> 
> 
> I suppose that I saw an "opportunity" to voice the chords with open perfect 5ths in the cellos when the melody moves on a big leap or something... an immediate shift up or down... but yeah, would sound dumb to my ears as well.
> ...


If he did it would have been perceived as a competing melodic idea rather than a harmonic one. 

Even the difference in texture between smooth voice leading and not so smooth voice leading is a texture. 

I'm not coaching that anyone not learn those principles of voice leading, I merely coaching to learn it and use it as a different sound. It took quite a few years to beat the Bach choral out of me - but it's always a tool that is still there. It's great for keeping harmony in check, with no voices jumping out inherently as a melody - this causes it to be less distracting and allows a clearer melodic statement. 

But you won't always want a melodic statement to be clear, so back to square one, learn everything you can - what "rules" sound like followed - what 'rules" sound like broken. Both are likely valid given the right circumstance in music


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 27, 2021)

ProfoundSilence said:


> If he did it would have been perceived as a competing melodic idea rather than a harmonic one.


Ahh! So, that's interesting because in the JW _Astroid Field_ cue, it is speculated that the "planing down" parallel 5ths in the brass cords heighten the drama by helping the large leap melody stand out... unless I am misunderstanding! Or, if it does not help the melody stand out, and draws attention to itself, is that because of the parallel 5ths? Maybe the introduction of two "competing ideas" heighten the drama?

I *think* it is probably safe to conclude though that common practice voice leading in accompaniment parts, even in films or 20th century music, serves an extremely useful purpose, given its frequency in those works. Perhaps that it is the default way of tonal composing, and there are many exceptions for the abandonment of it:


Dramatic reason. (See Schubert from the video in original post.)
Planing around. (See JW, _Mars_, or Chopin from the video in original post.)
Vin Diesel's truck explodes and sound mixers are philistine louts, forcing a less resonant orchestration choice that necessitates errant parallel motion. 😭
Clever anticipations/suspensions. (See Beethoven from the video in original post.)
Ugly music. (Not stated judgmentally, but there are aesthetically useful reasons for sounding "off.")
Special effect. (See organ effect in _Bolero_.)
Incorporating indigenous music.

A *separate* category of semi-tonal composing is in the tradition of Barber _Adagio for Strings_, Philip Glass, or Silvestri's _Castaway_ score. Parallel 5ths and octaves all over the place. Some very beautiful music, but has a different sound than pieces following common practice >90% of the time.

While there still are some rules, such as a 3rd in the bass not being doubled elsewhere in the chord, forcing common practice rules into this _Castaway_ segment appears impossible.





There is no coherent, good-sounding way to rewrite it so those parallel 5ths are "fixed." Same would apply to Barber's _Adagio_. It prompts speculation there is something inherent in this style that *necessitates* the 5ths via specific inversion of the triads. In addition, the mystical, sweet, or nostalgic nature seems to work best in 3 voices rather than 4 or more, *or* if accompaniment and melody are clearly demarcated. Philosophically speaking, these pieces aim for what can be gleaned from reducing the complexity. (Arvo Part has even stated this explicitly.)

Conversely, rewriting the previously-posted Nino Rota_ il Gattopardo_ score to utilize parallel 5ths like Barber, and the piece would lose its power and sophistication. Same can be said of the Shostakovich. Thus, there is something inherent in those styles that necessitate following common practice rules and their exceptions. Common practice is the ultimate expression of ordered musical creation... “ordered” because it is a system based on hierarchies gleaned from physical/mathematical realties of symmetry and the overtone series.

As a closing aside, I should note my favorite movie score I have written is not a common practice score, rather one that makes a lot of use of parallel 5ths... similar to Barber. But it is purposefully sparse, quite, and introspective, and not remotely complex. Alas, it makes for a pretty shitty concert piece!


----------



## borisb2 (May 27, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Dramatic reason. (See Schubert from the video in original post.)
> Planing around. (See JW, _Mars_, or Chopin from the video in original post.)
> Vin Diesel's truck explodes and sound mixers are philistine louts, forcing a less resonant orchestration choice that necessitates errant parallel motion. 😭
> Clever anticipations/suspensions. (See Beethoven from the video in original post.)
> ...


you forgot:
- the composer didnt notice

.. unless we are ruling out that human part  .. which would bring the (film-) composer above every (film-) director, because as we know there is a whole department of websites, groups and what not that search and spot these movie-mistakes/goofs .. and an unnoticed parallel movement one could call a music-goof


----------



## ProfoundSilence (May 28, 2021)

Williams often uses those competing little melodic fragments and his action cues, also planes them with minor or major chords depending on good guys or bad guys. 

Likewise you bring up inversions, sometimes I write progressions based on inversions, there's certainly a different harmonic weight to them - and actually this can lead to parallel fifths, which draws the ear - so the Harmony must move slowly, in the melody must have its space to recover the listener's attention. 

It's good that you can find music that still uses this to satisfactory effect, it should sound different. I think the sound is just as useful as smooth voice leading protocols.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell (May 30, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Ahh! So, that's interesting because in the JW _Astroid Field_ cue, it is speculated that the "planing down" parallel 5ths in the brass cords heighten the drama by helping the large leap melody stand out... unless I am misunderstanding! Or, if it does not help the melody stand out, and draws attention to itself, is that because of the parallel 5ths? Maybe the introduction of two "competing ideas" heighten the drama?
> 
> I *think* it is probably safe to conclude though that common practice voice leading in accompaniment parts, even in films or 20th century music, serves an extremely useful purpose, given its frequency in those works. Perhaps that it is the default way of tonal composing, and there are many exceptions for the abandonment of it:
> 
> ...


_Common practice is the ultimate expression of ordered musical creation... “ordered” because it is a system based on hierarchies gleaned from physical/mathematical realities of symmetry and the overtone series._


Well, this is a big rabbit hole. Look up the "Pythagorean comma". Some argue this is why equal temperament is sub-optimal. It rounds off the natural order; homogenizes the keys. 



One thing to note about the example you showed: this issue has been around for hundreds of years. 
Why do we perceive the middle voice as the root and not the bass. It could be F minor, in the same way, everyone hears the 2nd chord in James bond as an E minb6, not C/E. But alas it is not. 

I have read a few modal "Palestrina" theory books that call these "false low notes". 

What I find fascinating is this is a chance to observe "Hidden 5ths". 

It's easier to hear if you drop the F an octave. The 5th is being projected from the fundamental (F) and causing a "rub" with the Db. It's also creating a false leading tone that helps direct us to sense the Db as the root and not the F. Additionally the two (or 1 and a half) 5ths weaken the dissonance just as they do in a major 7 chord.


Finally, parallel 5ths were never as frowned upon as parallel octaves.


----------

