Voicing Chord Progressions

Hi!

I learned that parallel fifths should be avoided, however there are too many occassions were the chord progression doesn't sound good to me wenn avoiding cosecutive 5s.

For example: IV-iii-ii-I-I7-IV Sounds to me only good, when the root of the chords is always in the bass. Are the 5s okay in such situations??

Root position chords in succesion do not imply parallel 5ths, necessarily.

By the way, that chord progression is really clumsy to begin with, and with parallel 5ths it will sound even worse.

It might be better as: IV - I6 - ii(7) - I7 - IV.

And that way (basically because of the I6) you can easily avoid all parallel 5ths.

thx!

another question: Should I also follow the rules of voice leading when using broken chords(e.g. alberti-bass?)

Yes, of course.

Although since Alberti bass etc. means notes are consecutive, not concurrent, then you're allowed a little bit of leeway with certain rules of parallels. Mozart himself might write two root position triads in sequence in Alberti bass. You don't really hear the bad effect of the parallel 5th, so it's fine.

For example, see the D major triad followed by a B minor triad in the left hand of the first bar of this variations movement.

http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/objs/ed/ucb20_196_71.jpg

The intervening notes don't save the last example, and the parallels are between soprano-alto, soprano-bass, and bass-alto, so it sounds weak.

It's a nasty progression to harmonise.

And what should I do with this progression? :

I-V-v-vi-bVI-v-iv-V7-I

with the I chord in root position and a descending bass line until the iv-chord.

i especially don't know how to progress from vi to bVI without having parallel fifths!

i have the problem with most progressions where the roots are a second away, also for example: I-VII-bVII-VI-bVI... etc.

Consider using chord progressions with freer use of inversions.

To avoid parallel 5ths between two root position triads, a 2nd apart, you'll have to change the distribution of the chord. Say it's in three parts, the bass having the root, the soprano and alto will have (say) the third and fifth, respectively. (So, let's say A E C, from bottom up.) The next chord will have an Ab in the bass, and the third in the alto, and the fifth in the soprano, to avoid the parallel 5th. (So, Ab C Eb, bottom to top.) This can sometimes be clumsy, but is usually better than the straight-out parallel 5th. With four voices the parallel 5th can be avoided without any awkwardness.

This example was going from vi to bVI in C major.

This doesn't work too well on the piano, since I can't reach a 10th and the right hand is occupied too.

Then leave out one of the inner notes each time. Hopefully the right hand will supply that.

It works fine on the piano.

Hi!

I learned that parallel fifths should be avoided, however there are too many occassions were the chord progression doesn't sound good to me wenn avoiding cosecutive 5s.

For example: IV-iii-ii-I-I7-IV Sounds to me only good, when the root of the chords is always in the bass. Are the 5s okay in such situations??

Are you sure your thinking of voices? That's a farily easy to voice lead progression. You want to have 4 voices in most circumstances. Our ears really like that (it's boring but it's how you start). I think you are thinking in 3 voices and that makes it harder to avoid parrallel 5ths/8ves (not impossible though). Now Breaking the rules is totally acceptable if you understand them. Parallel 5ths gives a classical piece a modern sound. Listen to Debussy's Sonata Pour Harp, Viola and Flute and he uses them to create a modern sound. This entire thing will make sense as soon as you take tonal harmony.

I also wondered about Debussy. For example "Et la lune ..." from Images II, is full of consecutive root position chords resulting in parallel fifths. but why did he do? what did he want do achieve with that, when applying the voice leading rules usually sounds better?

I also wondered about Debussy. For example "Et la lune ..." from Images II, is full of consecutive root position chords resulting in parallel fifths. but why did he do? what did he want do achieve with that, when applying the voice leading rules usually sounds better?

Oh come on! Debussy writes some of the most beautiful music ever by breaking the rules. The sound of Parallel 5ths is really great, it's just not for tonal harmony. I'm sure Ravel broke those same rules and had even more beautiful music in my opinion (but I am far less familar with his music by score; I just have listened to alot of it). These rules you must know, but I would never follow them unless I wanted the specific sound following the rule gave me (which is fairly often :P)

I also wondered about Debussy. For example "Et la lune ..." from Images II, is full of consecutive root position chords resulting in parallel fifths. but why did he do? what did he want do achieve with that, when applying the voice leading rules usually sounds better?

the "voices" of the parts of each chord were not treated as individual voices. If you examine the music carefully, you realize that where Debussy uses that paralellism it is in fact a single monophonic texture. It is as though he were using the whole chord amalgam as a single voice.

Debussy is VERY careful about parallelism where there are independant voices, however. What appears to be parallel movement in Debussy is in fact nothing more than a textural treatment.