Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Here are three minor phrases I'm fairly happy with. I'm aware of one hidden parallel fifth in the third phrase, between the bass and the alto, bars one to two, but as far as I know the rest is clear. I've tried to be a bit more creative with these than the last ones, which were mainly just tonicizing the predominant.
I've tried to vary the exercises slightly, by using different meters and registers, just to keep things interesting, and give myself practice in more situations.
Thought I'd provide a brief analysis, to give you an idea of my intentions in each exercise:
In the first exercise I used a V/iv to precede an imperfect cadence. It seems more like an 8 bar sentence in structure than a 4 bar phrase, as the second bar ends with an imperfect cadence - though with a minor v - and the fourth bar ends with a perfect cadence after a bit of repetition, so I suppose it could be barred in 2/4 and called an 8 bar sentence. I was in a happy mood, and so ended with a tierce de picardie.
The second I was slightly more adventurous and decided to end the phrase with a perfect cadence on the relative major. This is definitely a four bar phrase, and leaves a definite feel of a need of a consequent phrase to balence it, with a perfect cadence on the tonic. I might write one actually, next time I have some time to kill
The third phrase I tried using one of your formulae, example ten in your finale file: V - V/VI - VI. This was a slight problem for me as your example was in the major mode, and I am in the minor, but eventually I worked out what I think to be a pleseant sounding and theortically sound progression.
I look forward to your comments/corrections
|
I like how all of your exercises sound; I see you are improving and these are all harmonies that would fit in nicely in any music you might write.
And I have many comments and concerns
.
NOTE:
I actually had comments about your exercises, but they turned into a historical and philosophical commentary on parallels. So feel free to not read the rest of this post. I will post real comments and criticism tomorrow.
First, about those hidden parallels: I personally would advise you be more careful and avoid them. As for the truth, however, I doubt it matters at all. Parallels between an inner voice and the bass, especially fifths, are hardly noticeable.
Historically composers have been far less consistent with managing parallels than modern textbooks admit. Vocal composers of the Renaissance often religiously avoided parallels like the ones you used... That said, certain parallels textbooks now prohibit were common in many Renaissance situations! Parallels were often hidden with ornamentation in one of the voices so that the perfect interval would ultimately be approached by contrary motion despite the underlying parallel structure. The reverse was also common: when consorts would play vocal music on instruments, improvised ornaments and scale elaborations ("divisions") would often introduce hidden parallels. Renaissance treatises explicitly permitted such hidden fifths in fast music on the grounds that the ear barely hears fast notes!
Furthermore, as composers ventured further into the realms of accompanied melody and homophony, many theorists questioned whether or not parallels were an issue in chordal passages where the voices were not meant to sound independent. Keyboard treatises of the Renaissance often asserted that parallels were perfectly fine as "filler" in keyboard music. So in Frescobaldi's correntes and toccatas and in Byrd's excellent pavans, we can easily find parallels... everywhere! And of course the music was skillfully composed; the composers knew what they were doing.
That said, all Renaissance composers were quite skilled at avoiding parallels in contrapuntal and sacred music. And this trend eventually affected keyboard music and figured bass too, so that by the Baroque period parallels were once again taboo.
As an example of how I personally view parallels, I will present a small excerpt from Pachelbel. Pachelbel's music (and his Canon is neither representative of his style nor his skill) is always smooth and careful; every note is always clear and singable, each one carefully chosen. Pachelbel, perhaps more than Bach or Buxtehude or others, guarded a conservative ethic and almost never broke the rules he set for himself.
Now open the attachment "Parallel Fifths."
So imagine how surprised I was to find a perfectly obvious parallel fifth in the left hand of this variation from his Hexachordum Apollinis... a passage both virtuosic and flowing and intense... I admire his daring here. A composer who was so disciplined,
yet here he simply decides the fifths are necessary. And having made his wise decision, he leaves the fifths plain to the eye, makes no pretense to hide them. A true master
.
Well, I am sorry to bother you with that little unrelated rant, but I think it is important to have a deep understanding of the place of rules in music... which is something of course you will see with time, and probably already begin to realize.
As for me, I will refuse to purposely write certain parallels until I feel as wise as Pachelbel
. Not that I haven't found accidental ones in my own music afterwards.. I just leave them there.
As for you; do whatever you want as long as you have thought through it.
