# Parallel fifths/octaves - I am confused



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 1, 2021)

I am not trained in music theory but know just enough to be dangerous.
I was just doing some reading about parallel fifths and octaves and I am now confused

Say I wrote a chord progression DMaj - AMaj - F#minor using violins, violas and celli

Violins playing: D
Violas playing: F#
Celli playing: A


Now, when moving to the next chord...

Violins playing: A
Violas playing: C#
Celli playing: E


And finally to the final chord...

Violins playing: F#
Violas playing: A
Celli playing: C#


Wouldn't that entire chord progression violate the "rule" of parallel fifths since each voice is moving up a parallel fifth?

I hope I am wrong (which I probably am)


----------



## darkmagi250 (Oct 1, 2021)

No, those aren't parallel fifths. You have parallel fourths, which are fine.

Parallel fifths would be if your voicing were like so:

Violins playing: F#
Violas playing: A
Celli playing: D

Violins playing: C#
Violas playing: E
Celli playing: A

Violins playing: A 
Violas playing: C# 
Celli playing: F#


----------



## gamma-ut (Oct 1, 2021)

One of the major problems of music theory in general is that the "rules" that get trotted are too often stripped of the context that make them make sense.

The proscription of parallel fifths and octaves happened in an era before the concept of chords existed in written music (or at least before their use became standard practice). Counterpart as described by Fux is for horizontal line writing where you want maximum independence between voices in a harmony, which Fux considered best practice. There are no chords. There are harmonies that sound like chords but there is no recognisable chord progression.

The reason for the prohibition of parallel fifths and octaves in that context is that because the fifth is so strong in the harmonic series, moving voices at those intervals in parallel seems to make independent voices collapse into one melody.

Ever since then, the rule on parallel fifths has relaxed because composers are not looking for completely independent melodic lines in a harmony. Octaves is a stronger rule because they often don't sound quite right unless they are used for deliberate doubling.

So, tl;dr - parallel fifths are fine in a chord progression. Well, almost. It probably won't sound like a conventional string arrangement as having every voice jump around with leaps will sound kinda wrong. What has carried over from early counterpoint is the idea of writing individual melodic lines that are much smoother because this sounds "right" - ie, everyone's used to it. So, you don't need to fully avoid parallel fifths but writing as though you're trying to will be more in line with idiomatic orchestral orchestration.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Oct 1, 2021)

...your major rookie flaw seems to be piano triad spacing (although you also seem to have the sections upside down with the cellos on top unless your in 2nd inversion - if so, best stick to basics at first for a good effect). You have to learn about part writing and voice leading for the best musical results when scoring and to have an 'open' sound as a creative option.

Re the fifths, without part writing knowledge and aural refinement, there isn't much point in an explanation imv. and tbh, one can ignore the rule these days as it applies only to certain musical contexts.


----------



## gamma-ut (Oct 1, 2021)

darkmagi250 said:


> No, those aren't parallel fifths. You have parallel fourths, which are fine.


In Fuxian counterpoint, parallel fourths are an even bigger no-no.

It doesn't matter now, but fourths would push the melodic lines out of the mode they are supposed to be in. So, fourths are treated as unwanted dissonances, even though psycho-acoustically, they are pretty consonant.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Oct 1, 2021)

....4ths are acceptable in 1st inversions. But guys, we are perhaps getting too technical for the OP.


----------



## darkmagi250 (Oct 1, 2021)

gamma-ut said:


> In Fuxian counterpoint, parallel fourths are an even bigger no-no.
> 
> It doesn't matter now, but fourths would push the melodic lines out of the mode they are supposed to be in. So, fourths are treated as unwanted dissonances, even though psycho-acoustically, they are pretty consonant.


Ah, interesting! I've never studied that counterpoint before. I was only taught that parallel fifths were the 'ultimate evil' in chordal writing, and fourths were tolerable. 
I'll take a look at Fux's work.


----------



## gamma-ut (Oct 1, 2021)

mikeh-375 said:


> ....4ths are acceptable in 1st inversions. But guys, we are perhaps getting too technical for the OP.


I was referring to OG Fux rules there. But also making the point that if parallel fifths are proscribed in the rules you are following, parallel fourths aren't a get-out-of-jail-free card.


----------



## gamma-ut (Oct 1, 2021)

darkmagi250 said:


> Ah, interesting! I've never studied that counterpoint before. I was only taught that parallel fifths were the 'ultimate evil' in chordal writing, and fourths were tolerable.
> I'll take a look at Fux's work.


At this point, you might find something like David Huron's recent book on Voice Leading more helpful.

Fux is based largely on the work of Palestrina and involves a load of stuff on church modes and old bits of theory like the "Guidonian hand" that, unless you want to mimic that style, is just plain confusing for a modern reader brought up on the tonal system.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Oct 1, 2021)

gamma-ut said:


> I was referring to OG Fux rules there. But also making the point that if parallel fifths are proscribed in the rules you are following, parallel fourths aren't a get-out-of-jail-free card.


sure, no prob. Context is all here as you say, and our musings are not necessarily relevant to the OP. These days, anything goes but as you know, refinement still needs study.
The OP could do worse than study species counterpoint.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 1, 2021)

mikeh-375 said:


> ...your major rookie flaw seems to be piano triad spacing (although you also seem to have the sections upside down with the cellos on top unless your in 2nd inversion - if so, best stick to basics at first for a good effect). You have to learn about part writing and voice leading for the best musical results when scoring and to have an 'open' sound as a creative option.
> 
> Re the fifths, without part writing knowledge and aural refinement, there isn't much point in an explanation imv. and tbh, one can ignore the rule these days as it applies only to certain musical contexts.


So, are you saying the celli should play the root note rather than the violins?

I use the strings as lush beds to play guitar over

Could you recommend a course on harmony for strings?



mikeh-375 said:


> ....4ths are acceptable in 1st inversions. But guys, we are perhaps getting too technical for the OP.


I will second that - I am coming from a rock/pop guitar background trying to do my best to learn as I go with writing with strings




I very much appreciate all the comments in this thread -- they will broaden my horizons -- perhaps one day I will actually contribute knowledge to this board rather than asking rookie questions


----------



## Mackieguy (Oct 1, 2021)

Sometimes my creativity is like: “Will this piss off my old music theory professor? Yes? Cool. Let’s do that. “


----------



## GNP (Oct 2, 2021)

There are times for a project where a more appropriate "counterpoint" was suitable, and other times, I've developed my own style, where it's not about counterpoint at all, but individual voices having their own character that when combined, gives undulating feelings that bring out something unexplainable to the whole, which forms another character on top.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Oct 2, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> So, are you saying the celli should play the root note rather than the violins?
> 
> I use the strings as lush beds to play guitar over
> 
> ...


First things first, can you read music in bass and treble clef @MorphineNoir ?


----------



## Nando Florestan (Oct 2, 2021)

Here are the basics:

If you write parallel octaves or parallel fifths, these will be heard more as a single voice than 2 different voices. Nothing wrong with doing so, as long as you want that sound.

If you want your voices to be heard as independent from each other (the study of counterpoint is the study of writing independent melodies that can be heard simultaneously), then you'd better avoid parallel fifths and octaves, especially between top and lowest voices. This is why contrary motion is favored -- when the soprano goes up the bass goes down and vice-versa.

The study of counterpoint is NOT obsolete, it just needs to be qualified: it aims for certain specific results.

The effect is not only between 2 parallel fifths (e. g. C-G going to D-A). Whenever the SECOND harmonic interval is a fifth or octave and is reached by parallel motion, no matter what the first interval is, it sounds weird. For instance, C-F to D-A.

The intent of avoiding parallel motion is the key that explains lots of choices in the compositions of the masters, including such composers as Bach and Tchaikovsky -- and it is interesting to see when they do use parallel motion and what the effect is.

I would recommend Walter Piston's "Counterpoint". Also Joaquín Zamacois, if you read Spanish.


----------



## tc9000 (Oct 2, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> Could you recommend a course on harmony for strings?


Not a course, and I have the same question as you, but I found this http://openmusictheory.com/


----------



## icecoolpool (Oct 2, 2021)

The OP is using planing chords where perhaps traditional good voice leading would be better. At the very least, the OP should learn how to basics of four-part harmony and then will be able to decide when to use traditional voice-leading and when to use chord planing in their writing.



Music matters is a really fantastic youtube channel and also has a video covering parallel fifths and octaves.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 2, 2021)

mikeh-375 said:


> First things first, can you read music in bass and treble clef @MorphineNoir ?


Yes, I know what the notes are on each staff


----------



## AR (Oct 2, 2021)

I love parallel fifths...
Check this incredible piece by Astor Piazzolla...

The Melody starts around 13:25 with the parallels coming in at 13:50 (can be seen on the camera facing the pianist clearly)
Beautiful fifths. Beautiful.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 2, 2021)

Here is something that I am also wondering 

Say I want to have the string section play a D Maj 7

That chord is composed of 4 notes (D F# A C#) - how would you assign those notes to 

Violins 1
Violins 2
Violas
Celli
Bass


----------



## ed buller (Oct 2, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> Here is something that I am also wondering
> 
> Say I want to have the string section play a D Maj 7
> 
> ...


it depends on the chord before and after. Voice leading is a constant thing. It flows through what you are writing. So to get things to sound smooth you need to make the right choice in each line !....sometimes this forces chord choice, certainly inversions. This a dep deep subject and worthy of study. I'd recommend spending an hour on youtube:



best

ed


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 2, 2021)

ed buller said:


> it depends on the chord before and after. Voice leading is a constant thing. It flows through what you are writing. So to get things to sound smooth you need to make the right choice in each line !....sometimes this forces chord choice, certainly inversions. This a dep deep subject and worthy of study. I'd recommend spending an hour on youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for the video

However, what if the D Maj 7 was the first chord in a project? How would you assign those notes to each string section?


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Oct 2, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> Here is something that I am also wondering
> 
> Say I want to have the string section play a D Maj 7
> 
> ...


Hi @MorphineNoir, there are many ways to voice that chord across the strings. Some questions that might point in the right direction:

Which note is the 'melody'? That will generally be the top voice.

What dynamic will this be played at?

What register will your melody be played at? high / mid / low?

Do you envision the chord filling the full frequency range? E.g. very low all the way up to very high? Or do you envision this sound being focused in the 'low' area, or 'high' area?


----------



## Rob (Oct 2, 2021)

what I'd almost certainly do is root the chord firmly in Vc and Cb, like D in basses and the fifth D-A in cellos. Then, not leaving a too wide hole above them, try different positions and doublings of A C# and F#. Try some with a string library and choose what's most appropriate for the piece...


----------



## ed buller (Oct 2, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> Thank you for the video
> 
> However, what if the D Maj 7 was the first chord in a project? How would you assign those notes to each string section?




BEST

E


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 2, 2021)

marclawsonmusic said:


> Hi @MorphineNoir, there are many ways to voice that chord across the strings. Some questions that might point in the right direction:
> 
> Which note is the 'melody'? That will generally be the top voice.
> 
> ...


Hi @marclawsonmusic 

I am trying to use the string sections as beds to put other solo instruments over (usually guitar melodies)

The chord would be 1 bar long played at _mf_

The register would be 1st violins playing in C5 to basses playing C1


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 2, 2021)

OK it might be easier to show you the progression I wrote and please don't be shy lol tear it apart re: everything I've possibly done wrong

Key is F#minor


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 2, 2021)

Huron’s book, mentioned earlier, is a great read and I highly reccomend also.

The main jist of your question is that in pop and other contemporary forms of music we have gotten used to hearing chords performed by a guitarist or keyboard player and the chords performed will sound like a singular musical line thst the brain processes like a single line, although it’s made up of multiple notes and a harmonic sound to it, we hear the chord progression when voiced that way as a single musical thing in a way.

Counterpoint is the study of how to give total independence to separate voices so that a listener will be able to hear and perceive them as seperate things that are happening at the same time. If you don’t use counterpoint tricks, then they will tend to blend together into a single “thing”, where that thing is a harmonic character to it, but is still perceived as a single musical element. On the other hand the mind can perceive multiple independent voices much better when care is given to counterpoint practices such as avoid parallels and various other things.

You can arrange the given chords you mentioned with or without care given to counterpoint and that will affect how listeners will perceive the sound as a big block of Am sound or as an Am sound with two or three or more clearly audible voices making their presence heard with distinct melodic character each. Either way is perfectly fine it just depends on what you are wanting to accomplish musically.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Oct 2, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> Hi @marclawsonmusic
> 
> I am trying to use the string sections as beds to put other solo instruments over (usually guitar melodies)
> 
> ...


Here are a few examples... some sound good, others not so much. All depends on what you are after, but Rob's advice to start with basses / celli in octaves is good to establish the low end.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ri5a18hj9ihr4jq/Dmaj7%20Voicings.wav?dl=0
Also, the higher the violins, the more they will stick out. So if you are just looking for background accompaniment, you might want to arrange them an octave lower.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 2, 2021)

marclawsonmusic said:


> Here are a few examples... some sound good, others not so much. All depends on what you are after, but Rob's advice to start with basses / celli in octaves is good to establish the low end.
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ri5a18hj9ihr4jq/Dmaj7%20Voicings.wav?dl=0
> Also, the higher the violins, the more they will stick out. So if you are just looking for background accompaniment, you might want to arrange them an octave lower.


Thank you for that - unfortunately, I don't have a sample library that does divisi


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Oct 2, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> Thank you for that - unfortunately, I don't have a sample library that does divisi


Any string library can do divisi.  Just turn off legato and play the two notes together, or create a separate track for the additional part(s).

Voicing a 4 note chord over 4 or 5 octaves is tricky without divisi. But it can be done. If you take the second example, remove the F# from the violas, and the top D from the violins, you have a one-note-per-section voicing.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Oct 2, 2021)

But I agree with the other posts on voice leading. Taking a course on string voice leading would help you a lot with these kinds of questions. Good luck!


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 2, 2021)

I figured I would post the progression as I wrote it as well as what Scaler 2 claims the chords to be


----------



## icecoolpool (Oct 2, 2021)

Voice leading doesn´t just help the string lines from sounding like one part, they also help the chord changes sound "smoother". There are types of motion you could use when writing string parts: similar, oblique and contrary. These will help you write more "professional" sounding string parts.

Say you´ve got a chord change from C major to F major.

The Cello plays a C, the viola an E (the third is an octave up (a third too close to the bass is likely to sound muddy)). The second violin takes the G above that and the first violin plays the C again.

I then move to the F major chord. The cello moves UP to an F while the other three voices move DOWN to the nearest available note in the next chord. This is called CONTRARY MOTION. For example: The viola moves from an E down to a C, 2nd violin goes from G to F and 1st violin goes from C to A. Now your voices are starting to move with some independence. 

Oblique motion is when one note does NOT move between chord changes (for example, the G could remain the same between a C and G).

Similar motion is when notes move in the same direction as eachother (viola and violin moving both up for example).

The picture below shows the difference between chord planing and proper voice leading. People new to writing usually use the top example (chord planing) by default. It does have its place (example: John Williams uses this technique for angular brass chords that "sound" like one voice). But writing like the bottom example, which uses the three types of motion we´ve talked about, is normally how people write for harmonic string parts. Try it with your own music and hear the difference.


----------



## thesteelydane (Oct 2, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> Could you recommend a course on harmony for strings?


What you want is https://scoreclub.net. Start with the basic module, Alain is a very good teacher and this will give you not just a solid foundation in the theory but more importantly how to apply it in real life to your writing process.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Oct 2, 2021)

thesteelydane said:


> What you want is https://scoreclub.net. Start with the basic module, Alain is a very good teacher and this will give you not just a solid foundation in the theory but more importantly how to apply it in real life to your writing process.


+1 to this. I can't say enough good things about Scoreclub.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 2, 2021)

icecoolpool said:


> Voice leading doesn´t just help the string lines from sounding like one part, they also help the chord changes sound "smoother". There are types of motion you could use when writing string parts: similar, oblique and contrary. These will help you write more "professional" sounding string parts.
> 
> Say you´ve got a chord change from C major to F major.
> 
> ...


Oh, well then, yes, I am definitely chord planing -- I will go back and switch things up and see how it sounds



thesteelydane said:


> What you want is https://scoreclub.net. Start with the basic module, Alain is a very good teacher and this will give you not just a solid foundation in the theory but more importantly how to apply it in real life to your writing process.





marclawsonmusic said:


> +1 to this. I can't say enough good things about Scoreclub.


Oh, thank you for the tip - I will check Scoreclub out


----------



## Gene Pool (Oct 2, 2021)

Disclaimer: Anyone who is allergic to long posts please turn away. I'm at my leisure.
____________________

@MorphineNoir

What is the style of the piece you're working on? That matters more than anything—even if it’s sort of a hybrid of one style and another, and another still—before you can even know what sort of parameters you'll want to use as your framework.

Your chord symbols alone look like something you'd see in the adult pop standards style of the 50's, or out-and-out jazz, or something in a similar neighborhood at least. But your audio indicates otherwise. Can’t decipher the context without the guitar melody. Whatever the case, it seems like you are probably NOT in a context where Purely Independent Voice-leading is the goal. But even then, there are things you want to be mindful of in order to evaluate what you want to accept, exploit, or avoid.

One is the direct octave you have going from the C#mi7 to the F#mi7/A, something you'd want to at least think about (it would be typically avoided as a Common Practice principle). It implies a parallel octave because our clever auditory perception can fill in the blanks ("intervallic diminution"), and sticks out especially because it’s between the outer voices, plus which it doubles the 3rd that is in the bass. That doubling is not a deal breaker necessarily since it’s a minor chord, but it’s something to at least think about. So, when you listen to the example, notice how there is a sudden imbalance from the second to the third chord going into the A’s by similar motion in the bass and top voice. But it’s your call certainly.

I'm going to copy-paste some things I've written over the years for various purposes that may be relevant for you, and adapt them a bit to your purpose. Broad *generalizations* ahead:

1) Whatever you're writing, whether it adheres through and through to the principles of total voice independence, or relaxes some of that, a lot of that, disregards most of it, or deliberately does the opposite, you want to be aware from the outset what style or sound you're going for so you know which parameters can be a guide for consistency, and to what extent each is applied.

2) When your goal is a *Purely Independent Voice-leading Context* (which, despite much myth making, will not automagically make your texture sound like Baroque or Classical)—where the harmony should sound more like a happy coincidence of multiple independent voices progressing concurrently towards the same goal (whether it be functional harmony or not)—you'll be better off writing your outer voices as a duet unit first, but you want to do it in such a way that you leave some room for the inner voices to have a satisfying profile of their own as well.

3) All lines should be directional, but in a 4-voice strand it is often the case that one voice might be a bit static and loiter a little longer than you'd wish (say, one bar roughly). So, you want to trade some of that static non-directionality around the four parts overall when the parts are largely co-equal (as in a fugue or canon, etc.) but mostly it should be hidden in the inner voices, and overall minimized to the extent possible.

4) The Riemenschneider edition of the _Bach 317 Chorales_ is the standard harmony textbook for 4-part writing according to a Purely Independent Voice-leading Context and has been for a long time. You can’t understand or appreciate the chorales if you only hear them played on piano; you have to hear the well-performed sung versions of the original setting. In any case, you learn harmony and counterpoint (another term merely for voice-leading) simultaneously by taking the microscope to the chorales.

5) Each 4-part chorale has six hierarchical duets, which, in descending order of importance are:

BS / BT / BA / SA / ST / AT

Unfortunately, the chorales are always published in condensed form, which is not how Bach wrote them, nor how he had his students write four part harmony. It was always one staff per voice, something to emulate, so re-writing each chorale you examine into four staves and singing them is already an education as to solid line writing. Then write down the intervals in hierarchical order formed between the six duets horizontally aligned with their occurrence, and scrutinize how they are distributed according to metrical stress, and according to the four basic types of pairing movement. Intervals in this context are divided into perfect, imperfect, and dissonant, and they are treated differently. Note how.

But...

When your context is NOT according to the above, which may be the case with your example, here are a few tips, rules of thumb:

Unless you're willfully going for a very sharp dissonant effect on a ma7 chord, you'll want to avoid voicing the 7 where the root is a flat-9 above it. You’ve done that here, so you’re good so far in that respect. And when the melody has the root, you'll prolly want to substitute an 11 for the 7 or do a reharm, unless the sharp effect is not a problem for you.

Voicings sound more "harmonic"—that is, the harmonic quality is emphasized the most—the tighter the voicing. Conversely, the more widely spaced the voicing, the more the harmonic effect is softened and the individual lines come more into focus. Either way, and regardless of your style context, you typically want your lines, especially in a pad, to be easily singable and flow along the path of least resistance. Don't let anything distract from the melody when the melody is moving or in the middle of a phrase.

In voicings, you always want to watch your low intervals. Do a search for low interval limits and download a chart. They're just guidelines, not hard and fast parameters, and there're a couple that are a little different from each other (a jazz one and a pop one), but they're largely very similar. The jazz versions were originally made for big band instruments, so you can relax them a bit for strings, especially in soft dynamics. And don't worry about using these so much in every orchestral context, but mainly keep them in mind for straightforward tonal contexts. Where you have melody + accompaniment, they can keep you out of trouble in the bass register until you have more grounding and are able to roll your own spacing.

For straightforward pad-like accompaniment, you want to be aware of the "neutral 9th," which spans from F3 to G4 (middle-C = C4). That's a very neutral register for human auditory perception, and the default point of departure for the most neutral harmonic accompaniment for jazz standards, pop songs, and homophonic orchestral textures. It works for strings, trombones, horns, clarinets and bassoons very well. In general, centering close voicings around middle-C is a good starting point, but try not to voice tension notes lower than roughly G3. You clearly have a wider voicing in mind in your audio file, which is perfectly valid of course, so this is only a reference point.

Here is one example of the type of pad writing I’m talking about, part of a song called _Gloomy Sunday_ from a Sarah Brightman album. These pads are a tight chordal mass mostly scored in the neutral zone, played over a bass line. Similar chord vocabulary to your example.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Oct 2, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> Disclaimer: Anyone who is allergic to long posts please turn away. I'm at my leisure.


Another masterclass from Gene Pool. I can't wait to dig into this. Thank you for sharing!


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 2, 2021)

marclawsonmusic said:


> Another masterclass from Gene Pool. I can't wait to dig into this. Thank you for sharing!


Yeah, @Gene Pool 's post will take me a while to dissect


----------



## ed buller (Oct 3, 2021)

I agree with others , school is worth it for this and there really is no better teacher than ALAIN @ scoreclub. Meanwhile this might help.



best

ed


----------



## Gene Pool (Oct 3, 2021)

I may have left you hanging a bit yesterday without some needed explanation of a few of my points. So, a few examples to clarify. None of this is based on your audio files or whatever you desire for this particular piece, but strictly on the chord symbols you posted. Just look for principles that you can regard or disregard according to your purposes.

These are minimally messed around with (only the second example has any passing tones); there are no chord tone substitutions or reharm in any version; and every voicing begins with C# in the lead. They are all also low-voiced or middle-voiced, and use closer voicings. Everything is in a simple Harmonic Texture.
____________________

–This first version largely follows default independent voice leading except for handling of the 7ths.
–The upper three voices remain in the neutral zone throughout.
–The voice-leading is smooth, and there is only one leap in each bar (green line).
–Instead of keeping the lead as a common tone in bar 2 (as a C#), I moved up to E to give a lift to the voicing to prevent a thicker tone, and preferred the contrary motion with the bass besides.
–The numbers below the staves pertain to the 6 hierarchical duets mentioned yesterday.
–Colored numbers indicate an interval that needed to be checked for motion.
–con = contrary; obl = oblique; sim = similar; par = parallel.
–Green numbers = pass.
–Red numbers = evaluate (in this case it's fine because = weak duet, and leap is in tenor).
–As I stated previously, doing this to at least a dozen of the Bach chorales (major and minor, different key centers, etc.) is an excellent starting point for acquiring a solid point of departure for note setting.





____________________

–The second version is identical to the first, but simple passing motion fills in the leaps.
–Whether or not you want passing motion at each opportunity for it depends on...
...the tempo, and how much motion you want, from concerted texture to fully contrapuntal.
–Green notes = chord tones as passing tone.
–Red notes = non chord tone (but diatonic) as passing tone.





____________________

I know the intent for your piece is _not_ jazz or anything near that neighborhood, but the main point of these last four versions is that there are many approaches to chordal accompaniment, and the ones in this post barely scratch the surface. Moreover, other approaches are always good to learn and appropriated, and reworked if need be, for styles other than those they are usually associated with.

Specifically, these are all hung voicings, also called mechanical voicings. They are voiced down from the lead voice, i.e., hung, but not the bass, which is independent of the voicing.

There are two each of Drop 2 and Shearing voicings, each having a slightly different lead profile, according to the label.

I should mention that dense voicings like these are very specific to certain contexts, and for the 4-part voicings if your strings were 10,4,4, you'd have 6 violins = lead, 4 violins = v2, 4 violas = v3, and 4 cellos = v4.

For the 5-part voicings, if you had 12/4/4, you'd have 4 violins = lead, 4 violins = v2, 4 violins = v3, and violas and cellos as above.

The "weird" leaps that occur sometimes in these voicings can be ironed out with other techniques if need be, but even as is they are characteristic of a certain sound of that style.

Double-basses are not a part of these particular voicings. The bass line itself however would be whatever you happen to have assigned to it, string bass (plucked) or electric bass, et cetera, but certainly much more interesting than these mere whole notes.

I probably left something necessary out, since I usually do. If so, someone else might fill in the blanks for you if you have any questions. Don't know when I'll get back, but I'll check here again when I do.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 3, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> I may have left you hanging a bit yesterday without some needed explanation of a few of my points. So, a few examples to clarify. None of this is based on your audio files or whatever you desire for this particular piece, but strictly on the chord symbols you posted. Just look for principles that you can regard or disregard according to your purposes.
> 
> These are minimally messed around with (only the second example has any passing tones); there are no chord tone substitutions or reharm in any version; and every voicing begins with C# in the lead. They are all also low-voiced or middle-voiced, and use closer voicings. Everything is in a simple Harmonic Texture.
> ____________________
> ...


WOW - this is like a music course in and of itself and will take me some time to digest

Based on the first image you posted, I went into Musescore and duplicated what you posted, here:






I then ran the "Check Harmony Rules" plugin and this is what came out:






What am I missing as it seems to still claim there are parallel 8ths (which I assume is just the doubling of the celli and basses) and then it has that "No 7ths, 9ths or larger" looming ominously

I truly truly appreciate your efforts to enlighten me

One last question - the original way I had written it, which broke all the rules, still sounds the best to me - now, that could be because it is what my ears became used to but, say I wanted to leave things as I originally wrote them, will I be castigated by the songwriting community (saying that half jokingly/half seriously)?


----------



## Babe (Oct 3, 2021)

Those are not parallel 8ths in true sense. You're doubling the bass line in octaves to add effect. It's an orchestration effect, not a harmonic effect.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 3, 2021)

I am posting both versions - the version suggested by @Gene Pool and my original version
I am just labeling them A and B without stating which is which in the hopes to spur further conversation


----------



## Babe (Oct 3, 2021)

Another way to explain what I said above is that parallel 5ths and octaves are between 2 different voices. When the bass is doubled in octaves, it's one voice.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 3, 2021)

Babe said:


> Another way to explain what I said above is that parallel 5ths and octaves are between 2 different voices. When the bass is doubled in octaves, it's one voice.


Yeah, I wrote in my post that I assumed the plugin was flagging it as a parallel octave incorrectly as it was just the celli and basses doubled


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 3, 2021)

as explained earlier, the time to avoid parallels is when you specifically need to hear the independent voices. If and when you have some instruments in unison...or perhaps even octaves...and the desire it so hear it as a single layered voice, then parallels are fine.

MuseScore flags it, because it doesn't know your intent.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 3, 2021)

another point to make is that Gene provided you with 4 part harmony examples. You then followed up with 5 part harmony examples in Musescore, where the 4th part is doubled. that is still basically 4 part harmony. The fact that the 4th and 5th staves are playing in octaves as a single bass voice...is perfectly fine.. it would be more interesting if you detected parallels between those bass staves and the top three staves.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 3, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> another point to make is that Gene provided you with 4 part harmony examples. You then followed up with 5 part harmony examples in Musescore, where the 4th part is doubled. that is still basically 4 part harmony. The fact that the 4th and 5th staves are playing in octaves as a single bass voice...is perfectly fine.. it would be more interesting if you detected parallels between those bass staves and the top three staves.


Yes, I wrote in my original post re: Musescore that I believed it was a false flag because it was the celli and basses

I was not trying to have a "gotcha" moment by adding in the bass part, considering all I did was double the cello - I just put it in there for completeness

@Gene Pool has provided amazing information in this thread, which I will be digesting for weeks to come and for this I am truly appreciative


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 3, 2021)

One reason I suspect you like your own example of this chord progression better is because you provided an example with a provided downward melody on the top voice and Gene did not use the same melody in his voice leading example. That was, IMHO, pointless. An example using the given melody and better voice leading would be on order..the example you provided does have some awkward inner voice leaps happening frankly. There are numerous different ways this same melody can be voiced with the same chord progression underneath...particularly if you don't necessarily care about 4-part harmony voice leading with 4 independent and distinguishable parts (which we don't hear in your example either)


----------



## Gene Pool (Oct 3, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> Based on the first image you posted, I went into Musescore and duplicated what you posted, here:
> 
> I then ran the "Check Harmony Rules" plugin and this is what came out...[snip]


Regarding the 7ths/9ths warning: The plugin is programmed to throw up a warning for that big leap you put in there that wasn't in the original. You didn't enter my notes correctly.



MorphineNoir said:


> One last question - the original way I had written it, which broke all the rules, still sounds the best to me...[snip]


That's not surprising. As I said previously, I didn't base the example on anything you had done except for the chord symbols. You're comparing your original foreground texture with my example of a very neutral background pad, which I did because you mentioned pads in an earlier post. It was a clarification of my post from yesterday where I spoke about pad writing in response.

There may be a nomenclature issue here. In short, pads are very neutral background accompaniment textures to stand in relief and contrast to a melody. They can provide anything from guide tones to full harmony; they are sustained, and they shouldn't draw attention to themselves. That's why I chose that particular register, removed the basses, and avoided anything that might draw attention. You find them kind of everywhere: pop songs, big band arrangements, orchestral writing, etc.

Also—teaching moment here—you changed the example that was written for a certain register to a higher one for which it was not intended. This can work sometimes, but a lot of times adjustments or a rewrite is necessary to pull it off in a different region. This can even happen by transposing something as little as a whole step.

The other part, with the intervals resulting from the 6 duets, was also an elaboration of the self-teaching exercise I mentioned yesterday. If anyone ever tells you that learning Purely Independent Voice-leading Principles, you should ignore them, because they are ignorant.

But most important, try to stop thinking about the "proper way" or the notion of "rules." What most people call rules are really just principles of a certain practice. The only time there is a "correct way" of composing something outside and academic setting is when you're trying to nail a certain style, in which case you have to be guided by a set of parameters.

There is nothing wrong with moving one 7th chord in any position parallel to another 7th chord, and then to another still. Parallels 5ths and 7ths will result, and it's fine, unless you don't like it, or your employer doesn't like it, or you're attempting to emulate Late Renaissance motet composition. Parallels of all sorts have been a thing for a long time now. Eventually you will assimilate what you're going to be learning over the years and then you'll know the place for everything and this confusion will dissipate.



MorphineNoir said:


> ...but, say I wanted to leave things as I originally wrote them, will I be castigated by the songwriting community (saying that half jokingly/half seriously)?


No one is the controlling authority over how music must be written, performed, or sound. And what pleases you, the composer, is first and foremost, unless someone is paying you to please _them_. Ignore any criticism that isn't constructive.


----------



## Gene Pool (Oct 3, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> ...Gene did not use the same melody in his voice leading example. That was, IMHO, pointless.


There was a point to it. I had a purpose. Explained in the post just above.

Of course, anyone else is free to post their own examples according to their own purpose as well.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 3, 2021)

Didn't mean to demean any of your insightful commentary, but I also didn't have time to read it all. My comment was for the op, not you.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 4, 2021)

From the book "Allgemeine Musiklehre" by Hermann Grabner. Translated by Google:

"With the cultivation of polyphonic music, it became necessary to understand the value of the individual tones between the singers. The mensural notation was created, the fixation of the note values by certain characters. The musica mensurata of the new art ("ars nova") contrasted with the musica plana (the even music of the "ars antiqua") of Gregorian chant.
The elaborate recording of the voices in discantation was called counterpoint (punctus contra punctum nota contra no tam), which expression was already in common use in the 14th century. With the recognition of the third and sixth as consonances by the most important music writer and teacher Franco von Cologne (13th century), the basis for the further development of counterpoint has been prepared in the most favorable way. *At the same time, the ban on parallel octaves and fifths that emerged at the time appears to be a complete departure from the old Organumstil and a precautionary measure, as if it were valid to consolidate what has been newly won by binding laws.*"

Original:

"Mit der Pflege der mehrstimmigen Musik war die Verständigung über den Wert der einzelnen Töne zwischen den Sängern nötig geworden. Es entstand die Mensuralnotenschrift, die Fixierung der Notenwerte durch bestimmte Zeichen. Die musica mensurata der neuen Kunst ("ars nova") trat der musica plana (der gleichmäßigen Musik der "ars antiqua") des gregorianischen Chorales gegenüber.
Die kunstvolle Aufzeichnung der sich diskantierenden Stimmen nannte man Kontrapunkt (punctus contra punctum nota contra no tam), welcher Ausdruck bereits im 14. Jahrhundert allgemein gebräuchlich ist. Mit der Anerkennung der Terz und Sexte als Konsonanzen durch den bedeutendsten Musikschriftsteller und Lehrer Franco von Köln (13. Jahrhundert) ist die Grundlage für die Weiterentwicklung des Kontrapunktes in günstigster Weise vorbereitet. Zugleich erscheint das damals aufgekommene Verbot paralleler Oktaven und Quinten als gänzliche Abkehr vom alten Organumstil und als Vorsichtsmaßregel, als gelte es das Neugewonnene durch bindende Gesetze zu befestigen."


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 4, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> Regarding the 7ths/9ths warning: The plugin is programmed to throw up a warning for that big leap you put in there that wasn't in the original. You didn't enter my notes correctly.
> 
> 
> That's not surprising. As I said previously, I didn't base the example on anything you had done except for the chord symbols. You're comparing your original foreground texture with my example of a very neutral background pad, which I did because you mentioned pads in an earlier post. It was a clarification of my post from yesterday where I spoke about pad writing in response.
> ...


Ahhh I now see the note I misentered - thank you for pointing that out

My intention for the progression I wrote was to have a string bed for other instruments - it does sound pleasing to me but, what sounds pleasing to me may not sound pleasing to others - that's what makes the world go 'round. As I am a neophyte when it comes to writing with orchestral instruments, I do tend to seek out "rules" that can help me and when I learn that I have violated these "rules" I then wonder whether my ears are deceiving me


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 4, 2021)

Rob said:


> what you could also do is create a more flowing chord progression by avoiding the omorhythmicity (!) of chord going down at the same time, maybe through the use of retard/appoggiatura or passing tones...


OK, not even Google recognizes the word "omorhythmicity" - can you kindly post what that means?


----------



## Gene Pool (Oct 4, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> My intention for the progression I wrote was to have a string bed for other instruments...


First step is to compose (including the orchestration) the melody or whatever foreground element you intend. Then you compose the pad behind that. If you do it in reverse (i.e., background first) then you might end up with something that doesn't allow enough room and relief for the foreground.



MorphineNoir said:


> As I am a neophyte when it comes to writing with orchestral instruments, I do tend to seek out "rules" that can help me and when I learn that I have violated these "rules" I then wonder whether my ears are deceiving me.


That's the perfect attitude. You need a solid basis. You just need to make sure you understand the difference between the pedagogy and free composition. Sometimes that's not made clear and it trips people up, and they wonder why species counterpoint, for example, doesn't resemble the music they're used to or that they want to write. Well-implemented species counterpoint and other proven pedagogies should be viewed as "wax-on; wax-off," if you get the reference (see: _The Karate Kid_).

Go to the link below and you'll find plenty of free systematic pedagogy that you would call the "standard" route. There are other methods also, and people have different preferences on certain methods and details, but you can at least get a strong framework going. The contributors know what they are talking about. And as boring as it may seem sometimes, _do the exercises_. And the one that I gave you will teach you a lot about the nature of intervals and the hierarchy of those that occur simultaneously in a given setting. Until you understand that you'll be at a disadvantage.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 4, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> First step is to compose (including the orchestration) the melody or whatever foreground element you intend. Then you compose the pad behind that. If you do it in reverse (i.e., background first) then you might end up with something that doesn't allow enough room and relief for the foreground.
> 
> 
> That's the perfect attitude. You need a solid basis. You just need to make sure you understand the difference between the pedagogy and free composition. Sometimes that's not made clear and it trips people up, and they wonder why species counterpoint, for example, doesn't resemble the music they're used to or that they want to write. Well-implemented species counterpoint and other proven pedagogies should be viewed as "wax-on; wax-off," if you get the reference (see: _The Karate Kid_).
> ...


What link?


----------



## Gene Pool (Oct 4, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> What link?


Hahaha, I forget to do that all the time. Link:

http://openmusictheory.com/contents.html


----------



## chrisphan (Oct 4, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> 5) Each 4-part chorale has six hierarchical duets, which, in descending order of importance are:
> 
> BS / BT / BA / SA / ST / AT


A bit off topic, but which of these duet relationships do you think is the most important in constructing a nice progression? I realize that this could entirely be subjective.
For me personally, it's BS and then SA. Everything in the middle seems more forgiving when it comes to dissonances, at least in modern styles.


----------



## Gene Pool (Oct 4, 2021)

chrisphan said:


> A bit off topic, but which of these duet relationships do you think is the most important in constructing a nice progression?


I put them in descending order in that list you quoted. Psycho-acoustically, the intervals formed against the bass come first, and the Bass—Soprano duet is at the top. When checking other composers' work for the first time, Brahms would cover up the inner parts with his hand and only look at the B—S first.

Except for certain situations, it's best to write the outer parts first. And have your plan worked out before beginning or else it'll take you longer if you don't know beforehand the shape and function you need the texture to be.

For instance, in a default harmonic or chorale-type texture, the top voice is a melody, because the chorale _is_ the foreground. But if you're writing a background accompaniment, the top voice is not a melody, it's just the top voice, and can somewhat static or else directional, whatever you need.

Within that framework you have to decide whether you want the whole texture to follow the path of least resistance throughout, or if you need it to expand and/or contract, or rise and/or fall, etc. If you make those decisions first, then your outer voice writing should go quicker and more naturally, and then you have a solid shell for the inner voices.


----------



## chrisphan (Oct 4, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> Except for certain situations, it's best to write the outer parts


That makes sense, I should do it more. On this topic of BS duet, would you agree that most intervals between them, except for maybe the #8/b9th can be considered consonances in modern free writing? I think 9th and 11th/#11th sound particularly great; even b9th could probably work in the right settings too. 
And if you do agree with that, do you consider them to be in the same category as traditional imperfect consonances (3rd, 6th), or in their own new category?


----------



## Gene Pool (Oct 5, 2021)

chrisphan said:


> ...would you agree that most intervals between them, except for maybe the #8/b9th can be considered consonances in modern free writing? I think 9th and 11th/#11th sound particularly great; even b9th could probably work in the right settings too.
> And if you do agree with that, do you consider them to be in the same category as traditional imperfect consonances (3rd, 6th), or in their own new category?


Okay, I'm not splainin' here, just reviewing some common knowledge to make part of my point.

So, of course it used to be the case where intervals were slotted neatly into categories, and for a long time 3rds were not even considered consonant since the people back then obviously had a very different idea of interval stability altogether, which is even harder for us to understand when you consider that their 3rds would have been pure and ringing, not like our out-of-tune e.t. 3rds.

But then later at over the same period that 3rds were finally accepted as consonant (speaking in broad timespans), people (musicians mostly) started to become sensitive to 5ths and 4ths, which were previously all the rage, and the unification of texture and perfect intervals gave way to maximizing independent voices in a texture, hence our notion of voice-leading.

Moving on, I used to know an old fella who had been a student of Nadia Boulanger in his youth, and he taught me how she taught harmony and counterpoint and trained composers, and one observation she had was that, in part, the development of European music was the development of the European ear gradually absorbing more and more of the harmonic series, though this was obviously complicated by equal-temperament.

Her breakdown was:

Gradually throughout *Antiquity (pre-Middle Ages)*: Harmonics 1 – 3
Gradually throughout the *Middle Ages and Renaissance*: Harmonics 1 – 5
Gradually throughout the *Common Practice Period*: Harmonics 1 – 9
Gradually throughout the *Late Romantic and 20th Century*: Harmonics 1 – 13

So, according to her theory, notwithstanding equal-temperament vs. Pure intonation, an extended chord that can sum up modern ears (on average and very broadly speaking) based on the harmonic series in C would be a C13(#11), or, if written as a polychord, Dma over C7.

She taught this theory to make a point about harmonic development and the development of the European "ear" for music and admitted that it wasn't scientifically precise, nor could it be.

Anyway, I think at this point it's probably helpful to view Consonance/Dissonance as a continuum rather than something where you slot each interval into a pigeonhole, since how each individual hears an interval is based on his or her musical hearing, musical conditioning, and the context of the piece.

For example, speaking for myself only, listening to Ravel, Bill Evans, and so forth, 9th, 11th, and 13th (etc.) chords sound as different levels of consonant-dissonant, and would sound different still if played in isolation without context. A combination of a basis of stability with added color, for the most part, and this changes of course according to voicing, register, and orchestration. But, as you mention, a foreground flat-9 remains a special case. It's technically less dissonant than a minor 2nd, but since the minor 2nd fuses as a single entity, the b9 is perceived as more dissonant to us.

But context-wise, I think when most people hear a piece decidedly using Common Practice voice-leading principles, suspensions and appoggiaturas still sound like dissonance resolved to consonance—soft dissonance for major 2nds and minor 7ths, and sharp dissonance for minor 2nds and major 7ths. But then five minutes later you can listen to pandiatonic writing or similar and all those intervals can suddenly stand alone as different levels of standalone color.

That's my longwinded summary.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Oct 5, 2021)

@Gene Pool 

Question...

My understanding is that the purpose of limiting polyphonic movement during the Renaissance was building a more "perfectly-constructed" system on which the axioms were the overtone series itself: the closer the overtone, the less difference between notes, thus the less discernible when done in similar motion.

As the threshold for acceptable consonance was raised up the overtone series, and equal temperament became standard as it is a system that expands the expressive range via modulation, no subsequent system of voice leading was codified by any composer or theorist which altered the perceived sameness of movement.

For example, a melody played in 9ths (like, in the keys of Bb and C at the same time) while obviously pretty dissonant, it is a lot more difficult to tell the difference between those voices than some parallel motion not permitted during the Common Practice or Renaissance periods. Yet, you will never hear "hey if you want those lines to be clear, don't write parallel 9ths!" lol...

It's like, once the number of acceptable consonances expanded, no new parameters were set to maximize the independence of voices. Why is that?


----------



## chrisphan (Oct 5, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> Her breakdown was:
> 
> Gradually throughout *Antiquity (pre-Middle Ages)*: Harmonics 1 – 3
> Gradually throughout the *Middle Ages and Renaissance*: Harmonics 1 – 5
> ...


Fascinating theory. However it makes me question how she would explain the natural 6th being perceived as a consonance quite early on? Do we just hear them as a 3rd inverted?


----------



## Gene Pool (Oct 6, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Question...


Good question. I don't know if there's a good answer, but I can speculate.

As for your example of a bitonal melody a ma9th apart, I wonder if, for the e.t. 9th to be accepted as harmonic rather than non-harmonic—since it's resolved from the pure 9th harmonic—there needs to be a 3rd somewhere between the two voices making the 9th, since we're so conditioned to tertian harmony, and that 3rd will give the "right" context to the 9th.

But in any case, lock-planing one interval like that, whether a 9th or a 5th, or a 3rd even, will probably be perceived as bitonal, though it'll just take marginally longer for the 3rd to be heard that way usually, depending on the melody.



Stephen Limbaugh said:


> It's like, once the number of acceptable consonances expanded, no new parameters were set to maximize the independence of voices. Why is that?


This is probably as speculative as it gets—a psychoacoustician would come in handy here—but overall I'd guess that there's only so much our mind's ear will accommodate given the the differences between pure intervals and equal temperament. Our psychoacoustic perception is obviously very accommodating to conditioning, and exceptionally intelligent besides, but the physiology of the actual ear doesn't change, and the critical bands of the basilar membrane still send the roughness of beating made by e.t. intervals.

But maybe a more practical reason would be because roughly right around the time that musicians gradually started to accept that, for example, the "added notes" in Debussy's "added note" chords (2, 6, or 9 quite often) were _not_ non-harmonic, but in fact harmonic in his context, Stravinsky set off a bomb and 20th Century music fragmented in all directions. Nothing was dominant anymore, so you wound up with different "camps" and "schools" and the like. Suddenly everything was a roll-your-own proposition. Stravinsky famously called it "the abyss of freedom."

Used to be that the differences in styles and approaches kind of came down to national schools, Italian, German, Viennese, French, etc., then suddenly it was a free-for-all and here we are, with nothing more in the way of a unified practice much less anything in the way of cultural conditioning except for the single fact of tertian harmony still being predominant, much to the serialists chagrin.

Anyway, that's my best guess.


----------



## Gene Pool (Oct 6, 2021)

chrisphan said:


> Fascinating theory. However it makes me question how she would explain the natural 6th being perceived as a consonance quite early on? Do we just hear them as a 3rd inverted?


The info I got from her former student doesn't go into specifics, but harmonic 13 is what she resolved to our ma6, which she only listed for the Late Romantic and 20th Century, and it resolves to tertian harmony. She _did_ mention that it's just a guide and shouldn't be used as an _a priori_ argument, since, after all, the 7th, 11th, and 13th harmonics are relatively far off from equal temperament.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 7, 2021)

I just had this thought and am hoping someone can explain to me how I am right/wrong...

If someone is using a strings ensemble VST, isn't every instrument in the ensemble playing the same note or chord? If that is the case, would that not violate all the rules we have ben discussing since every instrument is moving horizontally in the exact same way?


----------



## Babe (Oct 7, 2021)

Differentiate between voices and orchestration. In an orchestra, you can have many instruments playing the same voice. The rules pertain to how the voices move, not the orchestration.

As far as a string ensemble VST, each note in a section (V1, V2, Vla, Cello, Bass) will be playing the same note. But each section will be playing a different note. Except when they are playing in unison or octaves. See the beginning of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Beethoven's 5th, and a million other passages.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 7, 2021)

Babe said:


> Differentiate between voices and orchestration. In an orchestra, you can have many instruments playing the same voice. The rules pertain to how the voices move, not the orchestration.
> 
> As far as a string ensemble VST, each note in a section (V1, V2, Vla, Cello, Bass) will be playing the same note. But each section will be playing a different note. Except when they are playing in unison or octaves. See the beginning of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Beethoven's 5th, and a million other passages.


Forgive my idiotic posting


----------



## Babe (Oct 7, 2021)

Your posting is not idiotic. There is no such thing as a stupid question. You asked a question, I answered it.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 8, 2021)

Babe said:


> Your posting is not idiotic. There is no such thing as a stupid question. You asked a question, I answered it.


Well, ok, true, but my reasoning for saying it was idiotic was because I was watching a video about the Sunset Strings VST and, when I did not see the section names anywhere on the GUI, I mistakenly thought that the entire strings section was playing at once -- I then looked into it further and realized the sections were split across the keyboard


----------



## jbuhler (Oct 8, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> Well, ok, true, but my reasoning for saying it was idiotic was because I was watching a video about the Sunset Strings VST and, when I did not see the section names anywhere on the GUI, I mistakenly thought that the entire strings section was playing at once -- I then looked into it further and realized the sections were split across the keyboard


Well, only sort of. Sunset Strings being an ensemble library, all the sections are playing the same notes so long as the note is in the range of the section. The library does not have an auto-divisi that separates the ensemble into sections, except the basses can be mixed in separately. But you can still divide the ensemble into parts (pseudo-vln I, pseudo-vln II, pseudo-viola, pseudo-cello) and it will sound more or less like a string ensemble in sections so long as your part writing is idiomatic for strings. ("More or less" in this context means that it will depend on the material.)


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 8, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> Well, only sort of. Sunset Strings being an ensemble library, all the sections are playing the same notes so long as the note is in the range of the section. The library does not have an auto-divisi that separates the ensemble into sections, except the basses can be mixed in separately. But you can still divide the ensemble into parts (pseudo-vln I, pseudo-vln II, pseudo-viola, pseudo-cello) and it will sound more or less like a string ensemble in sections so long as your part writing is idiomatic for strings. ("More or less" in this context means that it will depend on the material.)


OK - that leads me to a follow-up question (which I am sure is a newbie question)

Are there any composers who have all the string sections playing the same note (in their respective range) moving in the same horizontal direction - and, if so, would this not violate the rule against parallel 5ths/8ths?

I really appreciate all the insight I am gaining in this thread - I have no problem (obviously) looking foolish by asking these questions which are likely basic to most of the forum members here


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Oct 8, 2021)

Yeah all the time! Though, a melody played in “unison” is considered one part.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 8, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Yeah all the time! Though, a melody played in “unison” is considered one part.


OK - that helps - so, if it is in unison, then the parallel 5ths/8th "rule" goes out the window

Now, to follow that up, what would a simple D Maj to A Maj two-chord progression be considered (would this violate the parallel 5ths/8ths "rule"?)

V1: D - A
V2: F# - C#
Viola: A - E
Celli: D - A
Bass: D - A

Thank you again


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 8, 2021)

@MorphineNoir, you keep conflating the concept of harmony parts and orchestration.

Part of "Orchestration", is the art of layering instruments into one cohesive sound. For example, if clarinet and oboe play the same line at the same time...the resulting sound will be a hybrid timbre of clarinet mixed with Oboe.

However, that layered sound represents only a a single voice or part in terms of multi-part harmony. There are no rules relevant at all in this case related to parallels, because they are not seperate parts, they are a single part...which happens to have two different instruments playing it at the same time in order to achieve a blended hybrid timbre.

In the same vein, the above can be true, even if two instruments are playing that line an octave apart. They would represent a single part. And it would sound like a single part.

The very reason the so called "rule" about parallels exists is precisely because if you instead had two instruments playing totally seperate harmony parts with melodic lines you want to distinguish on their own...but then suddenly they played together in unison, or an octave apart...they would not sound like two seperate parts for that little phrase, they would merge into a single part. Your brain would hear it as a single hybrid timbre for those couple of notes or phrase that are in parallel, as unison, as octave apart, or in many case as parallel 5ths also.

Again, it just depends what you want. If you wanted multiple harmony/melodic parts to blend into a single part.....then that would be perfectly acceptable. If you were wanting the seperate parts to continue to have a distinction in the listener's mind as separate parts..then you would need to avoid those parallels, including either Unison, octaves or 5ths.

But if and when you see orchestrated parts that are playing the same line, that is not any kind of violation of anything. That is simply a single harmony part being played by multiple players or instruments at the same time to achieve what sounds like a single hybrid timbre part.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Oct 8, 2021)

Depends if the bass cello are going up to A or down to A


MorphineNoir said:


> OK - that helps - so, if it is in unison, then the parallel 5ths/8th "rule" goes out the window
> 
> Now, to follow that up, what would a simple D Maj to A Maj two-chord progression be considered (would this violate the parallel 5ths/8ths "rule"?)
> 
> ...


Ahh. So here you have a 4 part harmony, where the "bass" note is doubled. So the unison D to A in Cello and Violin 1 is in fact errant.

V1: part 1
V2: part 2
Viola: part 3
Cello: part 4
Bass: part 4

Suppose though the whole string section is going to play Merry Had a Little Lamb in unison, that is just a melody, not 4-part writing.

Perhaps think of it like this to start out:

Melody in unison = not 4 part writing
Chords = do 4 part writing
Melody with chords = do 4 part writing


Here you can see an example of chords with no parallel 5ths/octaves with a melody on top:






Tessitura as an excuse for bad/weak voice leading


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...




vi-control.net


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 8, 2021)

I still take a little issue with that above. Chords do not always necessarily need to be 4 part writing.

what matters is whether you desire to distinguish 4 clearly audible parts as seperate lines....within the context of chord playing. Then you would need to do 4 part writing.

But if you desire to hear the chords as a single harmonic part...then not necessarily so.


----------



## ed buller (Oct 8, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> Are there any composers who have all the string sections playing the same note (in their respective range) moving in the same horizontal direction - and, if so, would this not violate the rule against parallel 5ths/8ths?


it's not a rule...It's a suggestion. And as others have pointed out it really comes from Baroque music. Simply put, if you are one of a few singers singing 4 part harmony weird things happen when there are parallels. it's an unpleasant harmonic distraction and interferes with the smooth as silk sound people went for in those heady days !

That was then !.....since the late romantic period ( 1850 ) onward many great composers have said "fuck em !'...i'm going parallel...Octaves fifths the whole schmear !!!".....and to wonderful effect . Debussy was constantly dammed by his tutors ! So don't worry. Voice leading is a tool to make things smooth. It can be very very frustrating and sometimes to abide by the "Rules" you'll change things that you liked to things you don't !.....there is NO FUCKING REASON TO DO THIS !!!!!!!!...unless you are sitting an exam.................


As quickly as possible gain confidence by writing shit that makes YOU happy ( unless you have a client then they NEED to be happy first ) and try not to think about rules. IF ( and its an if ) you really want to learn "proper" and "well bred" harmony then get a book ( you poor bastard) and just go through the exercises . There is a ton online too. But I have to say, FUX counterpoint and proper four part harmony isn't really a thing in the modern film score...that is NOT to say they don't know it and aren't well accomplished in its's use. There's a bewildering fugue that suddenly appears in a cue in Empire strikes back , god knows why..!

best

ed


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Oct 8, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> I still take a little issue with that above. Chords do not always necessarily need to be 4 part writing.
> 
> what matters is whether you desire to distinguish 4 clearly audible parts as seperate lines....within the context of chord playing. Then you would need to do 4 part writing.
> 
> But if you desire to hear the chords as a single harmonic part...then not necessarily so.


Sure... I was just helping in the event he wants his chords to be rendered smoothly, he should probably utilize the art of Common Practice voice leading.

In that other thread, there was definitely an opportunity for Soshtakovich to ignore the classical rules, but he didn't. It's because the ear is so satisfied with the correct progression of those accompaniment parts. 😊


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 8, 2021)

voice leading and counterpoint is absolutely applicable to modern score!!

The key is thinking of them as "technique", not as a "rule". The word rule creates a feeling of conformance...as if you have to either conform, or break a rule for no logical reason other then you feel like breaking the rule and be free. Which is an ill-informed way to think about it.

FUX taught this stuff as "rules" because at the time people had to learn it that way in order to learn it. Even today in these times it is necessary at some point of the learning process to learn them as rules as a way to simply learn it. However, when people say things like 'we learned these rules for some unknown reason but later on we were told we could ignore the rules". Ok...while that statement is true its also whoefully ignorant of why the rules existed then and can still exist as techniques in modern film score other forms of contemporary music. People making that statement may have learned some rules... the HOW TO DO IT...so to speak....but totally failed to learn the WHY TO DO IT, aspect of those rules/techniques.

These techniques have specific sonic consequences that have been identified and once you understand them you can weave in and out of using these techniques to achieve many sonic results...and very contemporary and modern results also..having absolutely nothing to do with Baroque music...that just happens to be the first time in human history that people began to experiment with multi-part western music and to establish some practices for bringing the multiple parts out...And people like Bach took it to an extreme...he was doing cutting edge stuff at the time and opened the doors for future generations to go way past what was done before him.

But just because we have moved on to Classical, Romantic and later music does not mean even remotely that voice leading and counterpoint has entirely gone out the window or that its only applicable to college exams! It is not for creating Fugues! Any such statement is from someone that doesn't understand the WHY and should read Huron's book as soon as possible.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 8, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> @MorphineNoir, you keep conflating the concept of harmony parts and orchestration.
> 
> Part of "Orchestration", is the art of layering instruments into one cohesive sound. For example, if clarinet and oboe play the same line at the same time...the resulting sound will be a hybrid timbre of clarinet mixed with Oboe.
> 
> ...


OK I am getting it now -- so, in my original post, I was trying to figure out whether I violated the rule of parallel 5ths/8ths and I did indeed do so and the posts herein have enlightened me - however, reading your post finally gave me a lightbulb moment

So, my original post was itself misguided as I was looking to have the strings basically be a lush bed over which I would play guitar or another instrument that would play a melody

If I wanted the string sections to play the melody then the rule re: parallel 5ths/8ths would come into play


Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Depends if the bass cello are going up to A or down to A
> 
> Ahh. So here you have a 4 part harmony, where the "bass" note is doubled. So the unison D to A in Cello and Violin 1 is in fact errant.
> 
> ...


Thank you for that but, what if I just want the string sections to play a chord for a measure then switch to another chord for a measure? The way I am thinking of it, they are basically taking the place of me playing open guitar chords for those measures - there is no melody involved, they are just a "bed" upon which other instruments will play the melody




Dewdman42 said:


> I still take a little issue with that above. Chords do not always necessarily need to be 4 part writing.
> 
> what matters is whether you desire to distinguish 4 clearly audible parts as seperate lines....within the context of chord playing. Then you would need to do 4 part writing.
> 
> But if you desire to hear the chords as a single harmonic part...then not necessarily so.


Thank you - your post is helping to answer my other questions posted herein


ed buller said:


> it's not a rule...It's a suggestion. And as others have pointed out it really comes from Baroque music. Simply put, if you are one of a few singers singing 4 part harmony weird things happen when there are parallels. it's an unpleasant harmonic distraction and interferes with the smooth as silk sound people went for in those heady days !
> 
> That was then !.....since the late romantic period ( 1850 ) onward many great composers have said "fuck em !'...i'm going parallel...Octaves fifths the whole schmear !!!".....and to wonderful effect . Debussy was constantly dammed by his tutors ! So don't worry. Voice leading is a tool to make things smooth. It can be very very frustrating and sometimes to abide by the "Rules" you'll change things that you liked to things you don't !.....there is NO FUCKING REASON TO DO THIS !!!!!!!!...unless you are sitting an exam.................
> 
> ...


Yes, I always start out writing things that sound good to me (I am a hobbyist and nobody pays me to write music) -- that being said, I am always looking for feedback and to expand upon my knowledge


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 8, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Sure... I was just helping in the event he wants his chords to be rendered smoothly, he should probably utilize the art of Common Practice voice leading.



There are numerous specific techniques that are part of "common practice voice leading" as you put it. The OP has kind of OCD'd on parallels, which is but one of them. 

Its not an all or nothing thing. I think his example has some awkward intervals happening in some of the inner voicing. Some voice leading study could improve some of that. The chord progression itself is a little odd to begin with, defying typical cadential patterns...making it somewhat interesting of a challenge...but anyway, that's all fine..there is no rule saying you have to follow typical chord progression patterns.

But some aspects of voice leading could improve the smoothness of that example without question...but it may or may not involve eliminating parallels..which seems to have become the hyper focus of this thread. Parallels are mainly only at question if and when the separation of independently heard melodic lines is desired. If the desire is rather to hear a single chord pad type of sound...as a single harmonic part...the parallels are probably irrelevant....but still there are some awkward voice leading intervals happening in there that could be cleaned up to create a much nicer sounding version of the same progression.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 8, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> OK I am getting it now -- so, in my original post, I was trying to figure out whether I violated the rule of parallel 5ths/8ths and I did indeed do so and the posts herein have enlightened me - however, reading your post finally gave me a lightbulb moment







MorphineNoir said:


> So, my original post was itself misguided as I was looking to have the strings basically be a lush bed over which I would play guitar or another instrument that would play a melody



Right, so if you want the lush bed of strings to sound more like a single kind of part....that happens to have a harmonic aspect to it...like if you were listening to a guitar player playing chords...then you don't really need many 4 part harmony voice leading... some of it. You still have some awkward intervals happening in some of the voices in there honestly...so some voice leading theory is not out of the question, but parallels are probably the least significant thing.




MorphineNoir said:


> If I wanted the string sections to play the melody then the rule re: parallel 5ths/8ths would come into play



It might, but only if you need some of the string instruments playing a different sub melody that you also want to be heard and distinguished while the main melody on top is still heard..




MorphineNoir said:


> Thank you for that but, what if I just want the string sections to play a chord for a measure then switch to another chord for a measure? The way I am thinking of it, they are basically taking the place of me playing open guitar chords for those measures - there is no melody involved, they are just a "bed" upon which other instruments will play the melody



yes. You can still achieve smoother chord transitions. One easy way to think about it is...how can you voice each chord so that each voice of the chord makes the smallest leap possible from chord to chord... smoothness.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 8, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> Right, so if you want the lush bed of strings to sound more like a single kind of part....that happens to have a harmonic aspect to it...like if you were listening to a guitar player playing chords...then you don't really need many 4 part harmony voice leading... some of it. You still have some awkward intervals happening in some of the voices in there honestly...so some voice leading theory is not out of the question, but parallels are probably the least significant thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you -- I guess my untrained ear does not hear the awkward intervals - could you possibly tell me which ones sound awkward as this will help me moving forward?

I see what you are saying about having the notes make the shortest leap possible -- does that go along with your comment about some intervals sound awkward?


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 8, 2021)

please notate out your example and I will comment more. I only heard the audio a few days ago...if you already notated yours out I don't recall seeing it.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 8, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> please notate out your example and I will comment more. I only heard the audio a few days ago...if you already notated yours out I don't recall seeing it.


OK - I posted the MIDI notes but I will post the actual notes on a staff shortly


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 8, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> I see what you are saying about having the notes make the shortest leap possible -- does that go along with your comment about some intervals sound awkward?


I think there could be some notorious augmented 2nds and things like that... I didn't really try to transcribe your example or anything. Notate it out and we'll talk more. But anyway, one very ulta-simplistic way to create smoother chord changes is to make sure the voices all lead smoothly. Sometimes big leaps are necessary, sometimes big leaps are even desirable, so this is not a hard and fast rule...just saying..try first to create smooth chord changes such that each voice of the chord advances to the next chord with a smooth sounding interval. Even though you don't care about hearing the 4 independent lines, imagine that are 4 people singing it and each of those people needs to at least enjoy singing what they have to sing...is it a smooth line, each one? This is very rudimentary way to look at voice leading, but its part of it...


----------



## José Herring (Oct 8, 2021)

Really great post. I haven't read them all but what I have read is very good. 

I can't add anything but to say that I usually can't believe that in this day and age this subject is still a problem for some. So I'll just leave an example of a passage that is filled with parallel octaves and 5ths from a composer who actually had some success in creating music that people like. As a matter of fact defined his style by breaking the "rules".


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Oct 8, 2021)

The Beethoven woodwinds are doublings though? 🧐



EDIT: here's a quick piano reduction:



The key is that it reduces to 3-parts... as one often does in Fux-style counterpoint 🤠

(also, I get bonus points for sight-reading clarinet in A transposition!)


----------



## sinkd (Oct 8, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> Thank you for the video
> 
> However, what if the D Maj 7 was the first chord in a project? How would you assign those notes to each string section?


According to your original progression, the following would yield close and linear voice-leading:

Violin: D-C#-C#
Viola: F#-E-F#
Cello: A-A-A


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 8, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> please notate out your example and I will comment more. I only heard the audio a few days ago...if you already notated yours out I don't recall seeing it.


OK - I believe I was able to notate the progression out
Thank you again


----------



## Prockamanisc (Oct 8, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> I am not trained in music theory but know just enough to be dangerous.


You should learn more theory, and become even more dangerous. 

Your chords, as you laid them out, are second inversions, which are unstable, and in a classical context are popularly used to set up a V-I cadence. So I don't understand why the cello playing the 5th note in parallel succession would sound good to begin with. But if it's working in the piece that you're writing, then go for it.

But let your ear guide your theory and let theory guide your ear. Learn concepts that allow you to hear new things, or hear old things in new ways. And then throw any theory rules out if the musical passage is working despite breaking them.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 8, 2021)

Prockamanisc said:


> You should learn more theory, and become even more dangerous.
> 
> Your chords, as you laid them out, are second inversions, which are unstable, and in a classical context are popularly used to set up a V-I cadence. So I don't understand why the cello playing the 5th note in parallel succession would sound good to begin with. But if it's working in the piece that you're writing, then go for it.
> 
> But let your ear guide your theory and let theory guide your ear. Learn concepts that allow you to hear new things, or hear old things in new ways. And then throw any theory rules out if the musical passage is working despite breaking them.


OK here is the chord progression in context
(nothing is mixed or EQ'd, just some light reverb as it is a work in progress)


----------



## Gene Pool (Oct 9, 2021)

Here are 1 through 4 of 8 modifications based on your original (the other 4 in the following post). I tried to keep your overall intent of a broad chordal mass moving overall directionally, and the top voice is either identical to yours or changed by one step on the last note. Everything is in concerted texture to emphasize the harmony. This is not written according to CP principles but using a pandiatonic technique. Any new chords are byproducts of that.


1) Similar to your original except in a more balanced voicing.







2) Similar to no. 1 except dbs. play a pedal, which adds stability to this type of mass directional movement.







3) Similar to no. 2 except the last two bars are re-harmonized because of diatonic planing.







4) Top three voices are identical to no. 3, but cellos move in contrary motion to the upper 3 voices, resulting in a re-harm of the last 3 bars.


----------



## Gene Pool (Oct 9, 2021)

Modification 5 through 8 of 8:


5) Identical to no. 4 except cellos play 8vb.







6) Based on no. 2 except violins II, violas and cellos are all divisi (not marked as such); tighter voicings result and increase level of harmonic intensity; cellos B play an A pedal above the basses D pedal.







7) Similar to no. 6, but violins II and violas are interlocked; violas B double top voice 8vb; divisi cellos move in contrary motion from unison; basses play A pedal over D pedal but progress upward last two bars. Tension notes added, resulting in re-harm on the last 3 bars.







8) Similar to no. 7, but violins II and violas are stacked; divisi cellos move contrary to each other again, but each line was taken from the unison cello part in nos. 3 & 4; basses are the same as no. 7.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 10, 2021)

@Gene Pool WOW - just wow!

You are providing me so much valuable knowledge - I am going to mock these up in the coming days and listen to all the differences 

Very much appreciated


----------



## Minsky (Oct 10, 2021)

I’d keep in mind that the idea of parallel 5th etc comes from a very particular period of writing (the common practice period). This does span quite a long time and is important that to observe if you want to write authentically in that style. Eg. It’s going to be important for a back chorale etc. 

More Modern / later eras (20th C) and jazz tinged harmonies will not be authentic if you follow this rule. So, I think, whilst the rules are actually important to understand (and you rightly ask for clarification here) knowing the context within which they operate is also important. *I expect you are aware of this but it bears stating I think.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 10, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> 1) Similar to your original except in a more balanced voicing.


OK , I am going through these here this morning mocking them up in MIDI

What I believe you did for "1" was exchange the notes (in their respective pitches) on the violins 2 and violas - am I correct?

What is the theory behind this being more "balanced"?

Also, I appreciate that you did not come right out and tell me to "switch the violins 2 and violas notes" - you guided me towards that so I could learn along the way



Gene Pool said:


> 2) Similar to no. 1 except dbs. play a pedal, which adds stability to this type of mass directional movement.


I see this keeps the Basses droning on D
I liked 1 better (probably because it sounded similar to my original) but, I think the bass drone did not serve the progression (to my ears)




Gene Pool said:


> 3) Similar to no. 2 except the last two bars are re-harmonized because of diatonic planing.


I think the bass drone is not something my ears like - "1" is still my favorite so far




Gene Pool said:


> 4) Top three voices are identical to no. 3, but cellos move in contrary motion to the upper 3 voices, resulting in a re-harm of the last 3 bars.


Ooo - I like that one - I hear what you mean now about having different sections moving up against other sections moving down


Here are 1, 2, 3 and 4 played consecutively:


----------



## fantasy sound (Oct 10, 2021)

This book might be interesting to some:




Timothy Cutler, "Bending the Rules of Music Theory: Lessons form Great Composers"

It contains a whole bunch of examples where composers, from Bach to Webern, broke the rules outlined in theory textbooks. 
I bought it several years ago and haven’t read it cover to cover, but rather opened it from time to time while composing. It is not only informative but also gives me the courage not to obey the strict rules I learned. Even Bach or Beethoven did write parallel fifths and octaves, so why shouldn’t I?


----------



## Gene Pool (Oct 10, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> OK , I am going through these here this morning mocking them up in MIDI...


That cavernous groan ambience from King Kong's shower you're using is not going to do you any favors trying to hear the music, whether in these examples or your own writing. First step is probably to work on that. With that amount of wash and tail your almost turning four or five parts into eight or ten. If you really want that type of verb you'd have to greatly simplify your writing.

Also, you're misreading some of the notes. And your basses (and maybe the cellos) are playing an octave too low. The basses in notation are written an octave higher than they sound, so a written D3 in basses (in the octave below middle-C) should sound as a D2, an octave lower. Cellos are written at pitch. When cellos and basses have the same written pitch, cellos are playing that pitch while basses are playing an octave lower.

So, just input all the notes correctly and double-check so you can compare to the notation accurately.

Ultimately, in your version you can obviously put the basses 8vb again if you prefer, but I lifted them up because it's typically not the best practice to have your low notes in the extra low region except for certain cases; it obscures and masks everything in the orchestration to oblivion.

Remember that I'm not trying to replace anything, but to show you options and principles and the sorts of things that can be done given the intent of your original.



MorphineNoir said:


> What I believe you did for "1" was exchange the notes (in their respective pitches) on the violins 2 and violas - am I correct?


No. The violins II line in no. 1 (starting with F#) is an octave higher and some of the notes are different. You have to read all the notes correctly. The viola line (starting with A) remains in place as in your original.



MorphineNoir said:


> What is the theory behind this being more "balanced"?


Just spreading your notes out a little more evenly. Trying to distribute the energy and achieve some amount of parity of relative register across the instruments. There is a place for gapped voicings, but they are and advanced technique that's beyond the earlier stage of composing.



MorphineNoir said:


> I see this keeps the Basses droning on D
> I liked 1 better (probably because it sounded similar to my original) but, I think the bass drone did not serve the progression (to my ears).


Whatever you do or don't like is perfectly legitimate. Pedal points (which are not drones) are just a tool, and they serve a few different purposes, and stabilizing a uniform mass like this is just one. Bear in mind also that the model for pedal points is that they typically start off as part of the harmony, then the harmony moves away and plays that tension against the pedal point which is not foreign to the harmony at points, and to increase that tension the composer may choose to make the harmony quite distant from the pedal point before returning it back to consonance. But whether a pedal point is right at any given point obviously depends on the context.

You can always rescore some of these by omitting the pedal points and doubling the cellos in the usual doubling (both reading the same note but resulting in an octave coupling; and when the cellos are divisi, double only the bottom note of the divisi.). Not all of them will work well like this however because the cello parts were not written with that in mind.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 10, 2021)

Gene Pool said:


> That cavernous groan ambience from King Kong's shower you're using is not going to do you any favors trying to hear the music, whether in these examples or your own writing. First step is probably to work on that. With that amount of wash and tail your almost turning four or five parts into eight or ten. If you really want that type of verb you'd have to greatly simplify your writing.
> 
> Also, you're misreading some of the notes. And your basses (and maybe the cellos) are playing an octave too low. The basses in notation are written an octave higher than they sound, so a written D3 in basses (in the octave below middle-C) should sound as a D2, an octave lower. Cellos are written at pitch. When cellos and basses have the same written pitch, cellos are playing that pitch while basses are playing an octave lower.
> 
> ...


Coincidentally, "King Kong's shower" is the name of my new progressive heavy metal band lol

I am definitely not a mix engineer and added in some reverb just to have something on there while listening - here is a screenshot of the reverb settings:





Thanks for the insight on the Celli/Basses - I have moved them up an octave, corrected the notes I had misread for example "1" (and removed the reverb):






Gene Pool said:


> No. The violins II line in no. 1 (starting with F#) is an octave higher and some of the notes are different. You have to read all the notes correctly. The viola line (starting with A) remains in place as in your original.


Yes, I am realizing I should put my reading glasses on 🤓



> Pedal points (which are not drones) are just a tool,


Not knowing what a pedal point was, I just extended the bass note to cover all four bars

So, I found his video and now another new thing I learned from this thread 👍




Finally, I hope my appreciation for your insight is shining through in my posts as I am not taking any advice you are generously providing me as anything but constructive criticism and an opportunity for me to learn something new


----------



## Gene Pool (Oct 10, 2021)

And back to the parallel 5ths issue, a needed rant, because there's LOTS of misunderstanding about the issue, which makes it difficult to discuss sometimes. Dewdman and Stephen Limbaugh (and others) have spoken about this already, here and elsewhere, and I'm going to add to it.

So, parallel 5ths, their avoidance only pertains to whether the *impression of tonal fusion will occur*—i.e., making one voice in the texture seemingly vanish. It's the *effect* that is avoided, and is not some sort anal retentive neurotic fear fad belonging to the Powdered Wig Society.

This means that you can't always go on the notation alone (or on a plugin checker), because there are many _seeming_ parallel 5ths that occur throughout the Common Practice (CP) period which look that way on paper, but were not the avoidable kind because there were other prevailing factors that prevented the impression of tonal fusion. When you see these, no "rule" was broken. It's simply that the principle wasn't in effect because the avoidable tonal fusion was not present. Understanding this is essential to understanding the totality of factors that comprise a musical effect. The issue can't be understood in a superficial manner.

These particular practices emerged in the Renaissance (not the Baroque), and dovetailed with the very gradual fading out of the old, but the seeds for them were planted a little before that even.

If you go back far enough you'll get to organum, which included singers singing parallel 5ths above the low voice like there was no tomorrow, and sometimes the low voice was also doubled an octave higher. Typically, men on the lowest voice, and high-voiced men and/or boys on the 5th, and boys only on the high octave. It doesn't confuse the singers because you simply sing the intervals of the plainchant, whatever your part. So, no one is being a musical rebel by doing something that has been common for well over a hundred years now, and which in any case was an ancient practice.

Whenever this subject comes up you'll sometimes see someone promote the silly notion that the CP principles and frameworks are some sort of hostile enemy intended to hamstring a composer's creativity. It's a counterproductive mindset and it's a shame that it continues to be propagated.

But fortunately several people have emphasized in this thread that those *principles*—which are *not rules* set out by a secret nefarious tribunal—are essentially a summation of how human musical perception works with respect to the goal of writing *Purely Independent Voices*.

That is one goal. It's not the _only_ goal, and it's also not a _"no longer relevant"_ goal. People who say otherwise are being just as oppressive as they seem to think the non-existent rule setters are being. Using these principles is a conscious decision that will not make anyone's music sound like Renaissance or Baroque or Classical unless you include the stylistic gestures and form and everything else attendant to those periods.

Mind you, no one is compelled to master the principles of Purely Independent Voice-leading, and there are different levels of it also; it takes a lot of work and it's obviously a free world, so it's a personal decision, and what level of limitation anyone person is willing to put up with is his or her business alone. I'm only trying to clear up some myth making you'll always see whenever this subject comes up. It's pretty clear that some people don't want others to reach above their level.

Every framework of principles—including the CP framework—is there for composers to advance their technique and WIDEN their range of expression, not limit it. That's not negated just because someone heard intervallic planing in Batman vs. Godzilla vs. Wokegirl at the mall cinemaplex last Saturday night and thinks that that's the sum total of musical worth.

I'm all out of time for the week but there are other people here with lots of musical sense that will be happy to answer any further questions you may have.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Oct 10, 2021)

Super interesting thread imo, thanks for the great postings


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Oct 10, 2021)

+1 to what @Gene Pool has said. I will add that as one goes back into why these rules developed in the first place, it becomes clear it was not mandated by church rules, classism, monarchical fiat, or anything intended to be purposefully divisive or elitist. Really, it was a pursuit to know the _nature_ of human perception of music -- in a scientific sense!*

In the interest in avoiding the drama/political zones, I will leave it here: the study of the _nature_ of _anything_ inevitably leads to the discovery of hierarchies, which are codified, then used to make cool shit. We just came out of a century where preeminent artistic/academic thinking on hierarchies and nature were not just challenged, but wholly rejected. That has filtered into contemporary musical discourse and often makes it difficult to talk about polyphony, because if one has cultural misgivings about some notes being better than others (who is to say, right?), they may not be as easily persuaded.

As musicians, we are all clawing our way toward some sort of meaning -- the kind of "meaning" that cannot even be expressed in words. The best chance we have on that treacherous journey of the soul is arming ourselves with the tools needed to negotiate the obstacles we put in front of ourselves.




_*Solid resource for those interested, watch every video on this channel: _


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 10, 2021)

Honestly I found great great value in reading David Huron's book: Voice Leading, The Scient Behind a Musical Art



This book examines some of the classic "rules" and looks at actual acoustical and pyscho-acoustical science to understand WHY these things actually work as they do; and based on science. He then re-writes a new set of "rules", which are expressed in a more modern and flexible way...with the actual _WHY_ encoded in them, which makes them far more useful as techniques to use in any way you want, understanding the intended result.

It is not a long book, very easy to read, and I found it to be truly fresh and eye opening..


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Oct 10, 2021)

Yeah -- I think that's the root of a lot of reticence towards music theory topics, because nobody explains _why_ certain processes and their results are pleasing to the ear. Good to see some books tackling the subject for a modern audience!

Then, typically the proponents of music theory in the classical world sound like lofty asses (watch on Youtube a Murray Perahia masterclass... barf) or dicks on internet forums (me) or like, guys trying to promote their Youtube channels who "jam" with other Youtubers. Coupled with a lot of composers in the film music world writing non-CP tonal music and there's definitely a wild race to a neo-ars nova! Exciting times!


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 10, 2021)

To the OP I just want to say, stick with it. Once you get more adept at looking for some of these things and hearing the difference, then some poor voice leading will literally sound like its out of tune, in a way. Believe me, you will hear this finer detail as you become more aware.

I was watching some you tube videos a couple weeks ago about Indian Classical music..which has even more strict rules...and literally WILL be out of tune if not adhered to. But then again, all of Western music is horribly out of tune by virtue of equal temperament, compared to Indian Classical music which adds more rules so that the results will in fact be more dynamically in tune...though somewhat limited harmonically in other ways.

The point is, these "rules" do exist for a reason. Know the reason. Know the sound. Work with rules and reason to make the sounds you want. Break the rules when you know why you are breaking the rule and why that sound will still be what you want. Don't be out of tune.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Oct 10, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> Indian Classical music..which has even more strict rules


Nice! Links plz.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 10, 2021)

heheh. Man I just kinda went down the you tube rabbit hole and don't remember any links I can quote now...but there is a ton of info about this. I'll try to see if I can figure out a couple..


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 10, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> To the OP I just want to say, stick with it. Once you get more adept at looking for some of these things and hearing the difference, then some poor voice leading will literally sound like its out of tune, in a way. Believe me, you will hear this finer detail as you become more aware.
> 
> I was watching some you tube videos a couple weeks ago about Indian Classical music..which has even more strict rules...and literally WILL be out of tune if not adhered to. But then again, all of Western music is horribly out of tune by virtue of equal temperament, compared to Indian Classical music which adds more rules so that the results will in fact be more dynamically in tune...though somewhat limited harmonically in other ways.
> 
> The point is, these "rules" do exist for a reason. Know the reason. Know the sound. Work with rules and reason to make the sounds you want. Break the rules when you know why you are breaking the rule and why that sound will still be what you want. Don't be out of tune.


Thank you for the words of encouragement

After all the different versions set forth in this thread, I still enjoy the sound of my original version the best, though I am trying my best to like some of the other version's sounds better as I know they are the musically correct versions and, if I played my original version to those well-versed in theory and composition beyond the safe confines of VIC, I would likely be met with stern looks and derision

To me, my original version gives me a feeling of slowly falling, like in a dream

The contributions from all of you who contributed to this thread have certainly opened my eyes (ears) to my weaknesses and I am looking into the books mentioned herein - an issue I have is that I probably need to practice my note reading on the staffs in order to make better use of those books -- right now, I know where the notes are on each of the three staffs but, I cannot just name the note by merely looking, I have to put my finger on the staff and name the notes - as such, I also need to practice being able to read the notes on a staff without spending too much time figuring them out

All of that being said, I have a lot to learn beyond just what I _think_ sounds good and learn why it sounds good (and when what I think sounds good actually doesn't sound good to others and why that is the case as well) - but, that's why I am here on VIC (hopefully, one day I can contribute to the board beyond asking newbie questions)


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 10, 2021)

well beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Don't make it so black or white. if you like what you wrote then you probably didn't need to ask for advice here


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 10, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> well beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Don't make it so black or white. if you like what you wrote then you probably didn't need to ask for advice here


While I liked what I wrote - I was confused about parallel fifths/octaves

I then set out the piece I was working on and asked whether or not I was violating the parallel fifths/octaves "rule" -- apparently, I was moving in parallel fourths, not fifths, but, it sparked a discussion and forum members posted ideas on how I could bring my composition within traditional voice-leading

This thread has really opened my eyes to a new way of thinking beyond just what my ears like, especially since I am coming from a pop/rock guitar background and just starting my journey into using orchestral instruments (well, besides that school year in 3rd grade I played viola)

Was what I did in asking for advice against VIC protocol? (asking seriously)


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 10, 2021)

no of course not. But you should also not infer that there is any "judgement" against you or your music...anymore then if a young student gets their grammar wrong and a teacher points it out. completely incorrect grammar is still a form of communication and can even be beautiful in its own way and the right context. Nobody is judging you here so far as I can see. You asked about music rules...so we are responding to your question.

The topic of voice leading and other music theory is not going to be learned in a few days on the internet. Some of us spent literally years to get it under our belt. You are just touching the tip of the iceberg. I encourage you to keep going with it. Enjoy your music making.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 10, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> no of course not. But you should also not infer that there is any "judgement" against you or your music...anymore then if a young student gets their grammar wrong and a teacher points it out. completely incorrect grammar is still a form of communication and can even be beautiful in its own way and the right context. Nobody is judging you here so far as I can see. You asked about music rules...so we are responding to your question.
> 
> The topic of voice leading and other music theory is not going to be learned in a few days on the internet. Some of us spent literally years to get it under our belt. You are just touching the tip of the iceberg. I encourage you to keep going with it. Enjoy your music making.


I do not think there is any judgment at all -- I even specifically set that out in the post you were responding to:



MorphineNoir said:


> if I played my original version to those well-versed in theory and composition beyond the safe confines of VIC, I would likely be met with stern looks and derision


I specifically stated that I thought VIC was a "safe confine"

😀


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 10, 2021)

MorphineNoir said:


> if I played my original version to those well-versed in theory and composition beyond the safe confines of VIC, I would likely be met with stern looks and derision





MorphineNoir said:


> All of that being said, I have a lot to learn beyond just what I _think_ sounds good and learn why it sounds good (and when what I think sounds good actually doesn't sound good to others and why that is the case as well) -



you make absolute statement here...as if there is some line, one side of the line it sounds good and on there other side of the line it sounds bad. But music doesn't work that way there is a humongous grey area in the middle and its entirely subjective. People will listen to your music and like it a lot or a little or not...or somewhere in between. Most people will not be in the slightest aware of whether you have used common practice voice leading to help them like it or not. Even most musicians listening to it will not be aware. 

All of us here have spent much time going through our work, taking bits we wrote that we like, and sometimes making it better so that we like it even more. Or sometimes we get fixated on the way we originally wrote it...got used to hearing it that way and simply have to leave it as is...all rules to hell... you're not alone in this. This is part of the artistic process....and its entirely subjective. You are not going to find some absolute set of rules that can analyze any given music and tell you whether it follows all the rules and so categorically should be called "good"...or it violates so many rules so it should be called "bad". In fact examples have bene given already in this thread of many important works that violated numerous rules...and apparently sound good since people listen to it hundreds of years later and enjoy it.

and I don't think there is anyone that will ever be looking at you sternly with derision...


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 10, 2021)

Also, with regards to your question about parallels...the answer about whether the parallels are a problem is not a simple question of parallels = bad or not. The question is what your intention was...and did you meet your intention. Did parallels get in that way of your intention? If so then yes the parallels would be bad. If they made no impact on your intention because you had no intention of having 4 distinguished lines....then the parallels would have been mostly inconsequential. I suspect the latter case for you in th is particular work. And by the way, rock music is FULL of parallels all over the place. yet the crowds love power chords eh? 

The original score you posted, the only two things I think you could work on, play around with, find your own voice...is one, Gene mentioned in his first example above...the spacing used is unconventional to say the least. You have big wide spacing between some of the voices and others close together. Not saying that's bad...but when I was sitting down thinking of how I would voice it, it was more like Gene's first example. and you already observed it sounds smoother. The two inner voices of your version are very tight together and create a closed voicing sound while the other all sound open. Not saying that is always verboten...but just saying...that would be one good area to look into.

Another thing I noticed with your version is that the third chord has two of the voices go from parallel 7ths to parallel octaves in the outer voices..and that creates an inconsistent vibe, starting at the third chord. The 7th interval between your outer voices is a strong statement with considerable dissonance, then suddenly at the third chord they merge into a single voice as octaves..which creates an inconsistency and loss of a voice, or rather more like an emboldening of that particular voice over the others. 

The outer two voices in particular have a stronger influence over what is heard then the inner two, so this sequence of 7ths, merging to octave...is something you might look into finding better way. If your intention is to have the entire string pad be like a smooth single instrument pad...that is totally fine...but that transition I just mentioned detracts slightly from that smoothness at that chord change.

Also you have voice crossing from the third chord to the 4th chord in the inner voices....

You have no contrary motion happening, and you can probably achieve the same sense of falling by having your downward melody in the top couple of voices..and still get some contrary motion in there with the bottom or bottom two voices even..which can help to bail you out of the challenges listed above. But...its also perfectly musical to have all notes moving down like your going down endless stairs...if you like it and that's the effect you want...then why not.

I think some passing notes will smooth out the change to the diminished 7th...but on the other hand, the abruptness of it may be exactly what you were going for....

Or...you love it is as....so don't change a think...on to the next....


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 10, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> Also, with regards to your question about parallels...the answer about whether the parallels are a problem is not a simple question of parallels = bad or not. The question is what your intention was...and did you meet your intention. Did parallels get in that way of your intention? If so then yes the parallels would be bad. If they made no impact on your intention because you had no intention of having 4 distinguished lines....then the parallels would have been mostly inconsequential. I suspect the latter case for you in th is particular work. And by the way, rock music is FULL of parallels all over the place. yet the crowds love power chords eh?
> 
> The original score you posted, the only two things I think you could work on, play around with, find your own voice...is one, Gene mentioned in his first example above...the spacing used is unconventional to say the least. You have big wide spacing between some of the voices and others close together. Not saying that's bad...but when I was sitting down thinking of how I would voice it, it was more like Gene's first example. and you already observed it sounds smoother. The two inner voices of your version are very tight together and create a closed voicing sound while the other all sound open. Not saying that is always verboten...but just saying...that would be one good area to look into.
> 
> ...


Being new to the, I assumed that I should keep all the sections an octave apart - that is why they were so spread out -- so, another good thing about this thread was learning about moving the voices closer together

I am definitely going to look into the voice crossing - yet another new thing I never worried about playing guitar chords

As this is a new world to me, I have been concentrating on just trying to have lush string chord beds -- passing notes are on the agenda


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 10, 2021)

its not that they should always be spread out wide. Its just that you want to be consistent. Either the chord has a closed voicing or open voicing. The example you provided was mixed, the inner voices were close together and your outer voices were spread out wide. Generally you will find open voicing to be most useful for this particular situation....string pad vibe...

The voice crossing is the least important thing I noticed frankly...it would matter more if you were trying to bring out the 4 independent lines. But its also mainly only happening because of the previous point about closed voicing in your inner voices and no contrary motion happening anywhere...

to my ears, the octave outer voices in the third chord are an issue..coming from the 7ths before that. You can resolve that by using F# in the bass instead of A. Bonus points if you approach that chord with contrary motion in the bass.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 10, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> its not that they should always be spread out wide. Its just that you want to be consistent. Either the chord has a closed voicing or open voicing. The example you provided was mixed, the inner voices were close together and your outer voices were spread out wide. Generally you will find open voicing to be most useful for this particular situation....string pad vibe...
> 
> The voice crossing is the least important thing I noticed frankly...it would matter more if you were trying to bring out the 4 independent lines. But its also mainly only happening because of the previous point about closed voicing in your inner voices and no contrary motion happening anywhere...
> 
> to my ears, the octave outer voices in the third chord are an issue..coming from the 7ths before that. You can resolve that by using F# in the bass instead of A. Bonus points if you approach that chord with contrary motion in the bass.



Ahhhhh ok - so it is not the fact that I had the voices spread wide, but that I used some close and some wide -- this is all great information that I appreciate -- I am going to set aside some time tomorrow to rework my original version taking notice of the spread, voice crossing and the F#/A issue in the bass


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 10, 2021)

I just reworked it but, it seems I cannot figure out how to keep my original notes in their voices while maintaining a consistent spread -- the way I have it now appears to have the notes all funneling closer and closer together (I will say I like how the celli and based move upwards in the last two measure)


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 10, 2021)

The reason Gene had moved the voicing around in his first example was to get a more even spread of notes in the first chord. You still have the inner notes clustered together.

of course if you use contrary motion in the bass, than its very likely that you may end up with the last chord being a closed chord. Maybe ok? If you don't want it closed, then you have more creative work to do. The point about the spacing is that any one particular chord should be consistently open or closed.

you can see the voice cross above...see how the purple note in chord 3 is below the blue note in the previous chord?

Move the blue notes above the purple notes.. That's one way. There are a few different ways you could voice the chords. But that will give you more room so that the ascending bottom notes will not run up close to the blue ones...


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 10, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> The reason Gene had moved the voicing around in his first example was to get a more even spread of notes in the first chord. You still have the inner notes clustered together.


OK - I appreciate your follow-up -- I was going to ask about that and how they are clustered -- I thought of bringing Violins 1 (pink) down an octave which would bring them closer to the Violins 2 (purple) and violas (blue) but then I wondered if I would have to bring the celli and basses up an octave so they were closer as well to the V1, V2 and Violas...?



Dewdman42 said:


> you can see the voice cross above...see how the purple note in chord 3 is below the blue note in the previous chord?
> 
> Move the blue notes above the purple notes.. That's one way. There are a few different ways you could voice the chords. But that will give you more room so that the ascending bottom notes will not run up close to the blue ones...


I had the blue notes (Violas) lower in pitch than the purple notes (Violins 2) and all blue notes remained higher in pitch than the purple notes throughout -- is that still considered voice crossover if the notes in each particular measure never overlap?

Thank you again


----------



## Dewdman42 (Oct 10, 2021)

At this point you will need to explore your music and figure it out. Voice leading can be challenging sometimes, like solving a puzzle. I think you've been given a lot of good ideas. Good luck.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Oct 10, 2021)

Dewdman42 said:


> At this point you will need to explore your music and figure it out. Voice leading can be challenging sometimes, like solving a puzzle. I think you've been given a lot of good ideas. Good luck.


Thank you


----------

