Jump to content

Logic & Counterpoint

- - - - - counterpoint voice leading rules parallel fifths

22 replies to this topic

#21
jrcramer

    Elite Composer

  • Reviewers
  • 1,635 posts
  • Favorite Composers:Frank Martin, Einar Englund, Samuel Barber
  • Instruments Played:piano, organ, and a little oboe

View Postvivies, on 30 January 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Let's be clear !

first of all the harmonic and counterpoint rules you describe concern a little part of music history ( let's say the baroque and classical periods). Unfortunately school & conservatory classes are based on tonal harmonic and counterpoint methods that apply rules extracted from the music of 17th and 18th century !
Did you know J.S Bach never wrote a "scholastic fugue" ? No ! however all the fugues he wrote were fantastic !
at the end of the 19th century, do you think Claude Debussy took care about paralell octaves and fifths ? no !
Do you think modal music from antic period to renaissance respected the rules you are talking about for many centuries ? No !

Guys, the great composers always used the "exception" that makes a composition unique !

I think you used too much exclamation marks. You aren't right because you yell. And you seem to press the argument that since the exception on the rule makes things better/unique/whatever, the exception becomes the rule. Which is just absurd
In case the files are not found: http://mydisk.se/jrc...page/music.html

#22
siwi

    Intermediate Composer

  • Teachers
  • 472 posts
  • My Compositional Styles:A sort of 'romantic modernism'
  • Notation Software/Sequencers:Sibelius 5
  • Instruments Played:Violoncello, piano, organ, viola
I think what is important to remember is that: firstly; the 'rules' of counterpoint are a classical example of theory following practice. Nobody just decided one day that parallel fifths and unprepared dissonances would henceforth be 'wrong' for all eternity; they simply codified what was generally happening already in vocal writing. There is a practical reason for observing these guidelines, as independent intervals are physically easier to sing than parallel ones (massive generalisation I know, but it was probably true to the 16th century ear). Secondly, as a student one learns these 'rules' precisely because they have been so well codified and so present a starting-point to develop a more individual voice later. Most choral music will observe the principles of this style if it is well-written, even though specific rules may be disregarded.
'Pay no attention to what critics say. No statue has ever been put up to a critic'. Janne Sibelius

Review my latest orchestral work The Sun Rising

Read my ramblings at inthemistsblog.blogspot.com

#23
wayne-scales

    Waldorf

  • Moderators
  • 382 posts
I heard a few people saying that about independent intervals - parallel fifths in particular; but I think I'm missing something: parallel 8ves or unisons are, obviously, easy to sing, and, as far as I know, singing in parallel perfect intervals was basically the deal back in ye olden days. From personal experience, when I started to do solfa singing, I inexplicably found it difficult to not pitch my starting note a perfect fourth above the one that was played (and I'd even sing the correct intervals, afterwards). Apparently, that's a thing: lots of people automatically sing along with a line in parallel fourths or fifths without even knowing it, initially.


Basically, my original intent for the thread was to see whether all departures from standard voice-leading were heard as problems, and not merely seen as them. I later read about some stuff written by Brahms and Bruckner that basically answered this question in the negative.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users