Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor breaks the “no parallel octaves” rule?Why are in music theory perfect...
Is it true that good novels will automatically sell themselves on Amazon (and so on) and there is no need for one to waste time promoting?
Awsome yet unlucky path traversal
Does Mathematica reuse previous computations?
Official degrees of earth’s rotation per day
It's a yearly task, alright
Why Choose Less Effective Armour Types?
What is a^b and (a&b)<<1?
Can a druid choose the size of its wild shape beast?
Instead of Universal Basic Income, why not Universal Basic NEEDS?
How do anti-virus programs start at Windows boot?
How to terminate ping <dest> &
What did Alexander Pope mean by "Expletives their feeble Aid do join"?
Are all passive ability checks floors for active ability checks?
My Graph Theory Students
How could a scammer know the apps on my phone / iTunes account?
Welcoming 2019 Pi day: How to draw the letter π?
Why do passenger jet manufacturers design their planes with stall prevention systems?
What are substitutions for coconut in curry?
What approach do we need to follow for projects without a test environment?
Life insurance that covers only simultaneous/dual deaths
How to read the value of this capacitor?
Why do Australian milk farmers need to protest supermarkets' milk price?
Min function accepting varying number of arguments in C++17
If curse and magic is two sides of the same coin, why the former is forbidden?
Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor breaks the “no parallel octaves” rule?
Why are in music theory perfect fifth parallels forbidden?Is there some trick for counterpoint beyond 2 voices?Authorship of Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, BWV 565Dissonances and harmonyVarying touches in Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D MinorHow to write in counterpoint for a sonata?Is 2 measures sufficient for a fugue subject?Why is writing in free counterpoint so hard?How to keep going in the fugueHow to go about writing a second countersubject?Countersubject strategy, is my strategy a good one?
I notice in his BWV 565, more well known as Toccata and Fugue in D minor, what looks like a lot of parallel octaves in the fugue. I have studied counterpoint before and every counterpoint resource I find says "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels" or something along those lines.
Here is the video starting at the fugue:
As you can see, right away, the subject is stated in octaves. There are several other moments where the octaves are very obvious. And these, if I'm not mistaken are parallel octaves, the same thing that every counterpoint teacher tells you to absolutely not use. I have been told by several people that these parallel octaves are not the same as the ones you need to avoid because of the specific voices they are in. Um, how does voice arrangement make any difference? Why isn't Bach breaking the rules every time he uses parallel octaves in this fugue? I thought parallel octaves were to always be avoided in Baroque counterpoint and that it is only really once you get to classical era and romantic era counterpoint that you are free to use octaves as much as you would like as long as the whole piece isn't just a string of octaves.
So I can understand the octave theme here in Beethoven's Grosse Fuge:
But why is Bach not breaking the rules of Baroque counterpoint with the parallel octaves in his Toccata and Fugue in D minor?
j-s-bach counterpoint fugue
add a comment |
I notice in his BWV 565, more well known as Toccata and Fugue in D minor, what looks like a lot of parallel octaves in the fugue. I have studied counterpoint before and every counterpoint resource I find says "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels" or something along those lines.
Here is the video starting at the fugue:
As you can see, right away, the subject is stated in octaves. There are several other moments where the octaves are very obvious. And these, if I'm not mistaken are parallel octaves, the same thing that every counterpoint teacher tells you to absolutely not use. I have been told by several people that these parallel octaves are not the same as the ones you need to avoid because of the specific voices they are in. Um, how does voice arrangement make any difference? Why isn't Bach breaking the rules every time he uses parallel octaves in this fugue? I thought parallel octaves were to always be avoided in Baroque counterpoint and that it is only really once you get to classical era and romantic era counterpoint that you are free to use octaves as much as you would like as long as the whole piece isn't just a string of octaves.
So I can understand the octave theme here in Beethoven's Grosse Fuge:
But why is Bach not breaking the rules of Baroque counterpoint with the parallel octaves in his Toccata and Fugue in D minor?
j-s-bach counterpoint fugue
1
Your first video is a piano transcription that is not how Bach originally wrote it or played it. If you listen to fugue played on an organ as originally written, there are no parallel octaves in the statement of the fugue, just a single line of notes. That first video you've linked should not be considered authoritative on the work.
– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago
1
Oh also the moment the video starts is not at all the start of the fugue. It’s smack in the middle of the toccata. The subject of the fugue in question starts on A an octave higher and descends with A remaining a pedal tone. In the linked video, the fugue starts at 2:50.
– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago
Bach didn't break the rule as this rule can't be applied for this compositions and not for the unisono passages. This question has also been answered here: music.stackexchange.com/questions/78011/…
– Albrecht Hügli
9 hours ago
add a comment |
I notice in his BWV 565, more well known as Toccata and Fugue in D minor, what looks like a lot of parallel octaves in the fugue. I have studied counterpoint before and every counterpoint resource I find says "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels" or something along those lines.
Here is the video starting at the fugue:
As you can see, right away, the subject is stated in octaves. There are several other moments where the octaves are very obvious. And these, if I'm not mistaken are parallel octaves, the same thing that every counterpoint teacher tells you to absolutely not use. I have been told by several people that these parallel octaves are not the same as the ones you need to avoid because of the specific voices they are in. Um, how does voice arrangement make any difference? Why isn't Bach breaking the rules every time he uses parallel octaves in this fugue? I thought parallel octaves were to always be avoided in Baroque counterpoint and that it is only really once you get to classical era and romantic era counterpoint that you are free to use octaves as much as you would like as long as the whole piece isn't just a string of octaves.
So I can understand the octave theme here in Beethoven's Grosse Fuge:
But why is Bach not breaking the rules of Baroque counterpoint with the parallel octaves in his Toccata and Fugue in D minor?
j-s-bach counterpoint fugue
I notice in his BWV 565, more well known as Toccata and Fugue in D minor, what looks like a lot of parallel octaves in the fugue. I have studied counterpoint before and every counterpoint resource I find says "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels" or something along those lines.
Here is the video starting at the fugue:
As you can see, right away, the subject is stated in octaves. There are several other moments where the octaves are very obvious. And these, if I'm not mistaken are parallel octaves, the same thing that every counterpoint teacher tells you to absolutely not use. I have been told by several people that these parallel octaves are not the same as the ones you need to avoid because of the specific voices they are in. Um, how does voice arrangement make any difference? Why isn't Bach breaking the rules every time he uses parallel octaves in this fugue? I thought parallel octaves were to always be avoided in Baroque counterpoint and that it is only really once you get to classical era and romantic era counterpoint that you are free to use octaves as much as you would like as long as the whole piece isn't just a string of octaves.
So I can understand the octave theme here in Beethoven's Grosse Fuge:
But why is Bach not breaking the rules of Baroque counterpoint with the parallel octaves in his Toccata and Fugue in D minor?
j-s-bach counterpoint fugue
j-s-bach counterpoint fugue
edited 20 mins ago
200_success
1,134915
1,134915
asked 11 hours ago
CatersCaters
1,0341820
1,0341820
1
Your first video is a piano transcription that is not how Bach originally wrote it or played it. If you listen to fugue played on an organ as originally written, there are no parallel octaves in the statement of the fugue, just a single line of notes. That first video you've linked should not be considered authoritative on the work.
– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago
1
Oh also the moment the video starts is not at all the start of the fugue. It’s smack in the middle of the toccata. The subject of the fugue in question starts on A an octave higher and descends with A remaining a pedal tone. In the linked video, the fugue starts at 2:50.
– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago
Bach didn't break the rule as this rule can't be applied for this compositions and not for the unisono passages. This question has also been answered here: music.stackexchange.com/questions/78011/…
– Albrecht Hügli
9 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Your first video is a piano transcription that is not how Bach originally wrote it or played it. If you listen to fugue played on an organ as originally written, there are no parallel octaves in the statement of the fugue, just a single line of notes. That first video you've linked should not be considered authoritative on the work.
– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago
1
Oh also the moment the video starts is not at all the start of the fugue. It’s smack in the middle of the toccata. The subject of the fugue in question starts on A an octave higher and descends with A remaining a pedal tone. In the linked video, the fugue starts at 2:50.
– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago
Bach didn't break the rule as this rule can't be applied for this compositions and not for the unisono passages. This question has also been answered here: music.stackexchange.com/questions/78011/…
– Albrecht Hügli
9 hours ago
1
1
Your first video is a piano transcription that is not how Bach originally wrote it or played it. If you listen to fugue played on an organ as originally written, there are no parallel octaves in the statement of the fugue, just a single line of notes. That first video you've linked should not be considered authoritative on the work.
– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago
Your first video is a piano transcription that is not how Bach originally wrote it or played it. If you listen to fugue played on an organ as originally written, there are no parallel octaves in the statement of the fugue, just a single line of notes. That first video you've linked should not be considered authoritative on the work.
– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago
1
1
Oh also the moment the video starts is not at all the start of the fugue. It’s smack in the middle of the toccata. The subject of the fugue in question starts on A an octave higher and descends with A remaining a pedal tone. In the linked video, the fugue starts at 2:50.
– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago
Oh also the moment the video starts is not at all the start of the fugue. It’s smack in the middle of the toccata. The subject of the fugue in question starts on A an octave higher and descends with A remaining a pedal tone. In the linked video, the fugue starts at 2:50.
– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago
Bach didn't break the rule as this rule can't be applied for this compositions and not for the unisono passages. This question has also been answered here: music.stackexchange.com/questions/78011/…
– Albrecht Hügli
9 hours ago
Bach didn't break the rule as this rule can't be applied for this compositions and not for the unisono passages. This question has also been answered here: music.stackexchange.com/questions/78011/…
– Albrecht Hügli
9 hours ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
The counterpoint rules for parallel octaves (and fifths) apply in cases where two or more voices are meant to be heard as independent. Similarly for covered fifths and octaves. (Also for long strings of parallel thirds or sixths, maybe six or more for that matter.) Voices moving in parallel sound like a single voice with doubling or harmonization. These are not wrong unless one needs the independence of these voices. For piano, a single voice is often doubled (usually the bass or soprano or both, rarely inner voices) for emphasis. No independence is implied, it's just a thicker sound.
3
I think this is the correct answer, explaining what the misunderstood rule is about, without heated rambling. And it explains why Bach did not break the rule, which was the original question.
– piiperi
9 hours ago
add a comment |
The only rules about relative motion are in textbooks.
Those rules describe norms or ideals for voice leading in a specific style, but outside of pedagogy there aren't rules. The clearest evidence that these are norms rather than rules is the fact that you can find them in real music of the Baroque and Classical eras.
If you include cases of parallel and direct 5ths/octaves exhibited in harmonic reductions (reducing broken chords and other figuration to block chords) it's not too hard to find example.
It wasn't the norm so you don't find lots of examples. But if keep your eyes open for them (and other so-called rule breaking) you will find them.
You will hear this "there are not rules" but "you broke the rules" stuff all the time. The worst is when it's phrased as "composer X could break the rules, because he was a genius." No. Anyone can do anything they want anytime. You don't need to be a genius. This kind of teaching isn't helpful for explaining the reasons why rules were sometimes followed and sometimes not followed. A more insightful explanation is needed.
Personally, this is what I think is the critical factor: the voice leading rules - which most definitely were taught as a list of prohibitions - were part of the learned style which figured largely with church music. When a composer worked in the learned style - making sacred music or vocal music - their approach was more conservative and "followed the rules." But when the music was secular or insturmental - Galant style would be a contemporary label from that era - composers weren't so scrupulous about voice leading.
This might not apply to this specific Bach example. But my point is just to be aware that the voice leading norms applied to a particular style and musical styles were constantly evolving. Bach used many different styles.
add a comment |
The example you use from BWV565 is not voicing but registration. There are no independent voices having some parallel movement in octaves. Instead there is a melodic line reinforced by octaves. In notation, you'd never give the constituent notes separate stems like you would for separate voices.
Organs have registers that will add pure octaves, pure fifths, pure thirds. They are used for creating a particular sound, not harmony. They don't share the temperament of the organ's tuning and they are not diatonic (when actually playing parallel fifths, you come across B-F and thirds change between major and minor all the time). Adding a fifth is sometimes done in bass voices for sound but rarely elsewhere, and fifths are prone to temperament. But in basically all common temperaments, octaves are pure throughout (stretch tuning on pianos is a different phenomenon). You can actually play them on the organ keyboard for reinforcement with an effect rather similar to pulling them in via registration.
The parallel octaves at the start of BWV565 are in the available handwritten copy (there is no autograph to be found any more I think). I think that part of the rationale found for it these days is that the piece was written with the intent of accommodating comparatively small organs with few registers, possibly as a test piece: the abrupt changes between filigrane single-line high coloratura and full-bodied low chords with pedal bass pose hellish difficulties for the typical air supply systems of older baroque organs: basically you need the kind of equalizing bellows systems Silbermann came up with in order to stop Bach from making his organs look bad. The inertia of a single main bellows will not allow switching from heavy air flow to very little without disgraciously overblowing the small pipes.
But I digress: the main point is that these octaves are not separate voices. They just add to the sound quality of a single coherent voice.
add a comment |
Bach didn't break the rule because this rule can't be applied for these 2 examples and especially not for the unisono passages.
"Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels"
If you google this "rule" you get:
No results found for "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels".
Why:
This rule has been developed by theorists for the four part counteroint progression.
Now your examples as Bach's Toccata are either not pieces for a four voices (Bach) or have unison sections (Beethoven), so there are logically pallalels of 8vas.
You'll find more information here:
http://www.choraleguide.com/vl-parallels.php
So, there being parallel octaves is not really an issue unless it is 4 independent voices, is that what you're saying? So if I am writing for 3 or 5 independent voices, it is fine if I end up with a few parallel octaves here and there?
– Caters
8 hours ago
The rule describes only what happens when the voices are leading in the same direction: we can’t differ them from each other as fine as when they are indepedent! So if you want that we hear their autonomy it sill be better to lead them in different ways. That’s it! So this problem will exist too with 2 or 3 voices. Unless yor purpose is to show a special effect: e.g. The mixtures in Racel’s Bolero or the an intended reference to the organum style or church sound, pop or special gospel sound.
– Albrecht Hügli
8 hours ago
add a comment |
No, Bach didn't break any rules, because there are no rules. What Bach did was write music that people still want to listen to, a few centuries after he wrote it.
When you read a list of "unbreakable rules* in a theory book, ask yourself one simple question: Did the author of that book ever write any music that is regularly performed today?
Of course in a few cases the answer is "yes," but you are probably not getting your information about "unbreakable rules" from the few "theory books" written by people who are well-known as composers - like Rameau, Schoenberg, or Hindemith, to give three examples.
Incidentally, you didn't mention the other gross "rule breaking" in BWV565: the answer in the fugue isn't even in the right key! It's in the subdominant, not the dominant!! Shock horror!!! Didn't Bach even know the dominant of D was A, not G????!!!!
But if you want to see Bach really mess around with the idea that fugues have "rules", look at Variation 10 of the Goldberg Variations. After a conventional start with subject / answer / subject, the rest is mayhem, so far as conventional theory is concerned - but it works fine, as music.
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "240"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f81489%2fbachs-toccata-and-fugue-in-d-minor-breaks-the-no-parallel-octaves-rule%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The counterpoint rules for parallel octaves (and fifths) apply in cases where two or more voices are meant to be heard as independent. Similarly for covered fifths and octaves. (Also for long strings of parallel thirds or sixths, maybe six or more for that matter.) Voices moving in parallel sound like a single voice with doubling or harmonization. These are not wrong unless one needs the independence of these voices. For piano, a single voice is often doubled (usually the bass or soprano or both, rarely inner voices) for emphasis. No independence is implied, it's just a thicker sound.
3
I think this is the correct answer, explaining what the misunderstood rule is about, without heated rambling. And it explains why Bach did not break the rule, which was the original question.
– piiperi
9 hours ago
add a comment |
The counterpoint rules for parallel octaves (and fifths) apply in cases where two or more voices are meant to be heard as independent. Similarly for covered fifths and octaves. (Also for long strings of parallel thirds or sixths, maybe six or more for that matter.) Voices moving in parallel sound like a single voice with doubling or harmonization. These are not wrong unless one needs the independence of these voices. For piano, a single voice is often doubled (usually the bass or soprano or both, rarely inner voices) for emphasis. No independence is implied, it's just a thicker sound.
3
I think this is the correct answer, explaining what the misunderstood rule is about, without heated rambling. And it explains why Bach did not break the rule, which was the original question.
– piiperi
9 hours ago
add a comment |
The counterpoint rules for parallel octaves (and fifths) apply in cases where two or more voices are meant to be heard as independent. Similarly for covered fifths and octaves. (Also for long strings of parallel thirds or sixths, maybe six or more for that matter.) Voices moving in parallel sound like a single voice with doubling or harmonization. These are not wrong unless one needs the independence of these voices. For piano, a single voice is often doubled (usually the bass or soprano or both, rarely inner voices) for emphasis. No independence is implied, it's just a thicker sound.
The counterpoint rules for parallel octaves (and fifths) apply in cases where two or more voices are meant to be heard as independent. Similarly for covered fifths and octaves. (Also for long strings of parallel thirds or sixths, maybe six or more for that matter.) Voices moving in parallel sound like a single voice with doubling or harmonization. These are not wrong unless one needs the independence of these voices. For piano, a single voice is often doubled (usually the bass or soprano or both, rarely inner voices) for emphasis. No independence is implied, it's just a thicker sound.
answered 9 hours ago
ttwttw
8,713931
8,713931
3
I think this is the correct answer, explaining what the misunderstood rule is about, without heated rambling. And it explains why Bach did not break the rule, which was the original question.
– piiperi
9 hours ago
add a comment |
3
I think this is the correct answer, explaining what the misunderstood rule is about, without heated rambling. And it explains why Bach did not break the rule, which was the original question.
– piiperi
9 hours ago
3
3
I think this is the correct answer, explaining what the misunderstood rule is about, without heated rambling. And it explains why Bach did not break the rule, which was the original question.
– piiperi
9 hours ago
I think this is the correct answer, explaining what the misunderstood rule is about, without heated rambling. And it explains why Bach did not break the rule, which was the original question.
– piiperi
9 hours ago
add a comment |
The only rules about relative motion are in textbooks.
Those rules describe norms or ideals for voice leading in a specific style, but outside of pedagogy there aren't rules. The clearest evidence that these are norms rather than rules is the fact that you can find them in real music of the Baroque and Classical eras.
If you include cases of parallel and direct 5ths/octaves exhibited in harmonic reductions (reducing broken chords and other figuration to block chords) it's not too hard to find example.
It wasn't the norm so you don't find lots of examples. But if keep your eyes open for them (and other so-called rule breaking) you will find them.
You will hear this "there are not rules" but "you broke the rules" stuff all the time. The worst is when it's phrased as "composer X could break the rules, because he was a genius." No. Anyone can do anything they want anytime. You don't need to be a genius. This kind of teaching isn't helpful for explaining the reasons why rules were sometimes followed and sometimes not followed. A more insightful explanation is needed.
Personally, this is what I think is the critical factor: the voice leading rules - which most definitely were taught as a list of prohibitions - were part of the learned style which figured largely with church music. When a composer worked in the learned style - making sacred music or vocal music - their approach was more conservative and "followed the rules." But when the music was secular or insturmental - Galant style would be a contemporary label from that era - composers weren't so scrupulous about voice leading.
This might not apply to this specific Bach example. But my point is just to be aware that the voice leading norms applied to a particular style and musical styles were constantly evolving. Bach used many different styles.
add a comment |
The only rules about relative motion are in textbooks.
Those rules describe norms or ideals for voice leading in a specific style, but outside of pedagogy there aren't rules. The clearest evidence that these are norms rather than rules is the fact that you can find them in real music of the Baroque and Classical eras.
If you include cases of parallel and direct 5ths/octaves exhibited in harmonic reductions (reducing broken chords and other figuration to block chords) it's not too hard to find example.
It wasn't the norm so you don't find lots of examples. But if keep your eyes open for them (and other so-called rule breaking) you will find them.
You will hear this "there are not rules" but "you broke the rules" stuff all the time. The worst is when it's phrased as "composer X could break the rules, because he was a genius." No. Anyone can do anything they want anytime. You don't need to be a genius. This kind of teaching isn't helpful for explaining the reasons why rules were sometimes followed and sometimes not followed. A more insightful explanation is needed.
Personally, this is what I think is the critical factor: the voice leading rules - which most definitely were taught as a list of prohibitions - were part of the learned style which figured largely with church music. When a composer worked in the learned style - making sacred music or vocal music - their approach was more conservative and "followed the rules." But when the music was secular or insturmental - Galant style would be a contemporary label from that era - composers weren't so scrupulous about voice leading.
This might not apply to this specific Bach example. But my point is just to be aware that the voice leading norms applied to a particular style and musical styles were constantly evolving. Bach used many different styles.
add a comment |
The only rules about relative motion are in textbooks.
Those rules describe norms or ideals for voice leading in a specific style, but outside of pedagogy there aren't rules. The clearest evidence that these are norms rather than rules is the fact that you can find them in real music of the Baroque and Classical eras.
If you include cases of parallel and direct 5ths/octaves exhibited in harmonic reductions (reducing broken chords and other figuration to block chords) it's not too hard to find example.
It wasn't the norm so you don't find lots of examples. But if keep your eyes open for them (and other so-called rule breaking) you will find them.
You will hear this "there are not rules" but "you broke the rules" stuff all the time. The worst is when it's phrased as "composer X could break the rules, because he was a genius." No. Anyone can do anything they want anytime. You don't need to be a genius. This kind of teaching isn't helpful for explaining the reasons why rules were sometimes followed and sometimes not followed. A more insightful explanation is needed.
Personally, this is what I think is the critical factor: the voice leading rules - which most definitely were taught as a list of prohibitions - were part of the learned style which figured largely with church music. When a composer worked in the learned style - making sacred music or vocal music - their approach was more conservative and "followed the rules." But when the music was secular or insturmental - Galant style would be a contemporary label from that era - composers weren't so scrupulous about voice leading.
This might not apply to this specific Bach example. But my point is just to be aware that the voice leading norms applied to a particular style and musical styles were constantly evolving. Bach used many different styles.
The only rules about relative motion are in textbooks.
Those rules describe norms or ideals for voice leading in a specific style, but outside of pedagogy there aren't rules. The clearest evidence that these are norms rather than rules is the fact that you can find them in real music of the Baroque and Classical eras.
If you include cases of parallel and direct 5ths/octaves exhibited in harmonic reductions (reducing broken chords and other figuration to block chords) it's not too hard to find example.
It wasn't the norm so you don't find lots of examples. But if keep your eyes open for them (and other so-called rule breaking) you will find them.
You will hear this "there are not rules" but "you broke the rules" stuff all the time. The worst is when it's phrased as "composer X could break the rules, because he was a genius." No. Anyone can do anything they want anytime. You don't need to be a genius. This kind of teaching isn't helpful for explaining the reasons why rules were sometimes followed and sometimes not followed. A more insightful explanation is needed.
Personally, this is what I think is the critical factor: the voice leading rules - which most definitely were taught as a list of prohibitions - were part of the learned style which figured largely with church music. When a composer worked in the learned style - making sacred music or vocal music - their approach was more conservative and "followed the rules." But when the music was secular or insturmental - Galant style would be a contemporary label from that era - composers weren't so scrupulous about voice leading.
This might not apply to this specific Bach example. But my point is just to be aware that the voice leading norms applied to a particular style and musical styles were constantly evolving. Bach used many different styles.
edited 9 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
Michael CurtisMichael Curtis
9,527534
9,527534
add a comment |
add a comment |
The example you use from BWV565 is not voicing but registration. There are no independent voices having some parallel movement in octaves. Instead there is a melodic line reinforced by octaves. In notation, you'd never give the constituent notes separate stems like you would for separate voices.
Organs have registers that will add pure octaves, pure fifths, pure thirds. They are used for creating a particular sound, not harmony. They don't share the temperament of the organ's tuning and they are not diatonic (when actually playing parallel fifths, you come across B-F and thirds change between major and minor all the time). Adding a fifth is sometimes done in bass voices for sound but rarely elsewhere, and fifths are prone to temperament. But in basically all common temperaments, octaves are pure throughout (stretch tuning on pianos is a different phenomenon). You can actually play them on the organ keyboard for reinforcement with an effect rather similar to pulling them in via registration.
The parallel octaves at the start of BWV565 are in the available handwritten copy (there is no autograph to be found any more I think). I think that part of the rationale found for it these days is that the piece was written with the intent of accommodating comparatively small organs with few registers, possibly as a test piece: the abrupt changes between filigrane single-line high coloratura and full-bodied low chords with pedal bass pose hellish difficulties for the typical air supply systems of older baroque organs: basically you need the kind of equalizing bellows systems Silbermann came up with in order to stop Bach from making his organs look bad. The inertia of a single main bellows will not allow switching from heavy air flow to very little without disgraciously overblowing the small pipes.
But I digress: the main point is that these octaves are not separate voices. They just add to the sound quality of a single coherent voice.
add a comment |
The example you use from BWV565 is not voicing but registration. There are no independent voices having some parallel movement in octaves. Instead there is a melodic line reinforced by octaves. In notation, you'd never give the constituent notes separate stems like you would for separate voices.
Organs have registers that will add pure octaves, pure fifths, pure thirds. They are used for creating a particular sound, not harmony. They don't share the temperament of the organ's tuning and they are not diatonic (when actually playing parallel fifths, you come across B-F and thirds change between major and minor all the time). Adding a fifth is sometimes done in bass voices for sound but rarely elsewhere, and fifths are prone to temperament. But in basically all common temperaments, octaves are pure throughout (stretch tuning on pianos is a different phenomenon). You can actually play them on the organ keyboard for reinforcement with an effect rather similar to pulling them in via registration.
The parallel octaves at the start of BWV565 are in the available handwritten copy (there is no autograph to be found any more I think). I think that part of the rationale found for it these days is that the piece was written with the intent of accommodating comparatively small organs with few registers, possibly as a test piece: the abrupt changes between filigrane single-line high coloratura and full-bodied low chords with pedal bass pose hellish difficulties for the typical air supply systems of older baroque organs: basically you need the kind of equalizing bellows systems Silbermann came up with in order to stop Bach from making his organs look bad. The inertia of a single main bellows will not allow switching from heavy air flow to very little without disgraciously overblowing the small pipes.
But I digress: the main point is that these octaves are not separate voices. They just add to the sound quality of a single coherent voice.
add a comment |
The example you use from BWV565 is not voicing but registration. There are no independent voices having some parallel movement in octaves. Instead there is a melodic line reinforced by octaves. In notation, you'd never give the constituent notes separate stems like you would for separate voices.
Organs have registers that will add pure octaves, pure fifths, pure thirds. They are used for creating a particular sound, not harmony. They don't share the temperament of the organ's tuning and they are not diatonic (when actually playing parallel fifths, you come across B-F and thirds change between major and minor all the time). Adding a fifth is sometimes done in bass voices for sound but rarely elsewhere, and fifths are prone to temperament. But in basically all common temperaments, octaves are pure throughout (stretch tuning on pianos is a different phenomenon). You can actually play them on the organ keyboard for reinforcement with an effect rather similar to pulling them in via registration.
The parallel octaves at the start of BWV565 are in the available handwritten copy (there is no autograph to be found any more I think). I think that part of the rationale found for it these days is that the piece was written with the intent of accommodating comparatively small organs with few registers, possibly as a test piece: the abrupt changes between filigrane single-line high coloratura and full-bodied low chords with pedal bass pose hellish difficulties for the typical air supply systems of older baroque organs: basically you need the kind of equalizing bellows systems Silbermann came up with in order to stop Bach from making his organs look bad. The inertia of a single main bellows will not allow switching from heavy air flow to very little without disgraciously overblowing the small pipes.
But I digress: the main point is that these octaves are not separate voices. They just add to the sound quality of a single coherent voice.
The example you use from BWV565 is not voicing but registration. There are no independent voices having some parallel movement in octaves. Instead there is a melodic line reinforced by octaves. In notation, you'd never give the constituent notes separate stems like you would for separate voices.
Organs have registers that will add pure octaves, pure fifths, pure thirds. They are used for creating a particular sound, not harmony. They don't share the temperament of the organ's tuning and they are not diatonic (when actually playing parallel fifths, you come across B-F and thirds change between major and minor all the time). Adding a fifth is sometimes done in bass voices for sound but rarely elsewhere, and fifths are prone to temperament. But in basically all common temperaments, octaves are pure throughout (stretch tuning on pianos is a different phenomenon). You can actually play them on the organ keyboard for reinforcement with an effect rather similar to pulling them in via registration.
The parallel octaves at the start of BWV565 are in the available handwritten copy (there is no autograph to be found any more I think). I think that part of the rationale found for it these days is that the piece was written with the intent of accommodating comparatively small organs with few registers, possibly as a test piece: the abrupt changes between filigrane single-line high coloratura and full-bodied low chords with pedal bass pose hellish difficulties for the typical air supply systems of older baroque organs: basically you need the kind of equalizing bellows systems Silbermann came up with in order to stop Bach from making his organs look bad. The inertia of a single main bellows will not allow switching from heavy air flow to very little without disgraciously overblowing the small pipes.
But I digress: the main point is that these octaves are not separate voices. They just add to the sound quality of a single coherent voice.
answered 8 hours ago
user58382
add a comment |
add a comment |
Bach didn't break the rule because this rule can't be applied for these 2 examples and especially not for the unisono passages.
"Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels"
If you google this "rule" you get:
No results found for "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels".
Why:
This rule has been developed by theorists for the four part counteroint progression.
Now your examples as Bach's Toccata are either not pieces for a four voices (Bach) or have unison sections (Beethoven), so there are logically pallalels of 8vas.
You'll find more information here:
http://www.choraleguide.com/vl-parallels.php
So, there being parallel octaves is not really an issue unless it is 4 independent voices, is that what you're saying? So if I am writing for 3 or 5 independent voices, it is fine if I end up with a few parallel octaves here and there?
– Caters
8 hours ago
The rule describes only what happens when the voices are leading in the same direction: we can’t differ them from each other as fine as when they are indepedent! So if you want that we hear their autonomy it sill be better to lead them in different ways. That’s it! So this problem will exist too with 2 or 3 voices. Unless yor purpose is to show a special effect: e.g. The mixtures in Racel’s Bolero or the an intended reference to the organum style or church sound, pop or special gospel sound.
– Albrecht Hügli
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Bach didn't break the rule because this rule can't be applied for these 2 examples and especially not for the unisono passages.
"Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels"
If you google this "rule" you get:
No results found for "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels".
Why:
This rule has been developed by theorists for the four part counteroint progression.
Now your examples as Bach's Toccata are either not pieces for a four voices (Bach) or have unison sections (Beethoven), so there are logically pallalels of 8vas.
You'll find more information here:
http://www.choraleguide.com/vl-parallels.php
So, there being parallel octaves is not really an issue unless it is 4 independent voices, is that what you're saying? So if I am writing for 3 or 5 independent voices, it is fine if I end up with a few parallel octaves here and there?
– Caters
8 hours ago
The rule describes only what happens when the voices are leading in the same direction: we can’t differ them from each other as fine as when they are indepedent! So if you want that we hear their autonomy it sill be better to lead them in different ways. That’s it! So this problem will exist too with 2 or 3 voices. Unless yor purpose is to show a special effect: e.g. The mixtures in Racel’s Bolero or the an intended reference to the organum style or church sound, pop or special gospel sound.
– Albrecht Hügli
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Bach didn't break the rule because this rule can't be applied for these 2 examples and especially not for the unisono passages.
"Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels"
If you google this "rule" you get:
No results found for "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels".
Why:
This rule has been developed by theorists for the four part counteroint progression.
Now your examples as Bach's Toccata are either not pieces for a four voices (Bach) or have unison sections (Beethoven), so there are logically pallalels of 8vas.
You'll find more information here:
http://www.choraleguide.com/vl-parallels.php
Bach didn't break the rule because this rule can't be applied for these 2 examples and especially not for the unisono passages.
"Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels"
If you google this "rule" you get:
No results found for "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels".
Why:
This rule has been developed by theorists for the four part counteroint progression.
Now your examples as Bach's Toccata are either not pieces for a four voices (Bach) or have unison sections (Beethoven), so there are logically pallalels of 8vas.
You'll find more information here:
http://www.choraleguide.com/vl-parallels.php
edited 8 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
Albrecht HügliAlbrecht Hügli
3,192220
3,192220
So, there being parallel octaves is not really an issue unless it is 4 independent voices, is that what you're saying? So if I am writing for 3 or 5 independent voices, it is fine if I end up with a few parallel octaves here and there?
– Caters
8 hours ago
The rule describes only what happens when the voices are leading in the same direction: we can’t differ them from each other as fine as when they are indepedent! So if you want that we hear their autonomy it sill be better to lead them in different ways. That’s it! So this problem will exist too with 2 or 3 voices. Unless yor purpose is to show a special effect: e.g. The mixtures in Racel’s Bolero or the an intended reference to the organum style or church sound, pop or special gospel sound.
– Albrecht Hügli
8 hours ago
add a comment |
So, there being parallel octaves is not really an issue unless it is 4 independent voices, is that what you're saying? So if I am writing for 3 or 5 independent voices, it is fine if I end up with a few parallel octaves here and there?
– Caters
8 hours ago
The rule describes only what happens when the voices are leading in the same direction: we can’t differ them from each other as fine as when they are indepedent! So if you want that we hear their autonomy it sill be better to lead them in different ways. That’s it! So this problem will exist too with 2 or 3 voices. Unless yor purpose is to show a special effect: e.g. The mixtures in Racel’s Bolero or the an intended reference to the organum style or church sound, pop or special gospel sound.
– Albrecht Hügli
8 hours ago
So, there being parallel octaves is not really an issue unless it is 4 independent voices, is that what you're saying? So if I am writing for 3 or 5 independent voices, it is fine if I end up with a few parallel octaves here and there?
– Caters
8 hours ago
So, there being parallel octaves is not really an issue unless it is 4 independent voices, is that what you're saying? So if I am writing for 3 or 5 independent voices, it is fine if I end up with a few parallel octaves here and there?
– Caters
8 hours ago
The rule describes only what happens when the voices are leading in the same direction: we can’t differ them from each other as fine as when they are indepedent! So if you want that we hear their autonomy it sill be better to lead them in different ways. That’s it! So this problem will exist too with 2 or 3 voices. Unless yor purpose is to show a special effect: e.g. The mixtures in Racel’s Bolero or the an intended reference to the organum style or church sound, pop or special gospel sound.
– Albrecht Hügli
8 hours ago
The rule describes only what happens when the voices are leading in the same direction: we can’t differ them from each other as fine as when they are indepedent! So if you want that we hear their autonomy it sill be better to lead them in different ways. That’s it! So this problem will exist too with 2 or 3 voices. Unless yor purpose is to show a special effect: e.g. The mixtures in Racel’s Bolero or the an intended reference to the organum style or church sound, pop or special gospel sound.
– Albrecht Hügli
8 hours ago
add a comment |
No, Bach didn't break any rules, because there are no rules. What Bach did was write music that people still want to listen to, a few centuries after he wrote it.
When you read a list of "unbreakable rules* in a theory book, ask yourself one simple question: Did the author of that book ever write any music that is regularly performed today?
Of course in a few cases the answer is "yes," but you are probably not getting your information about "unbreakable rules" from the few "theory books" written by people who are well-known as composers - like Rameau, Schoenberg, or Hindemith, to give three examples.
Incidentally, you didn't mention the other gross "rule breaking" in BWV565: the answer in the fugue isn't even in the right key! It's in the subdominant, not the dominant!! Shock horror!!! Didn't Bach even know the dominant of D was A, not G????!!!!
But if you want to see Bach really mess around with the idea that fugues have "rules", look at Variation 10 of the Goldberg Variations. After a conventional start with subject / answer / subject, the rest is mayhem, so far as conventional theory is concerned - but it works fine, as music.
New contributor
add a comment |
No, Bach didn't break any rules, because there are no rules. What Bach did was write music that people still want to listen to, a few centuries after he wrote it.
When you read a list of "unbreakable rules* in a theory book, ask yourself one simple question: Did the author of that book ever write any music that is regularly performed today?
Of course in a few cases the answer is "yes," but you are probably not getting your information about "unbreakable rules" from the few "theory books" written by people who are well-known as composers - like Rameau, Schoenberg, or Hindemith, to give three examples.
Incidentally, you didn't mention the other gross "rule breaking" in BWV565: the answer in the fugue isn't even in the right key! It's in the subdominant, not the dominant!! Shock horror!!! Didn't Bach even know the dominant of D was A, not G????!!!!
But if you want to see Bach really mess around with the idea that fugues have "rules", look at Variation 10 of the Goldberg Variations. After a conventional start with subject / answer / subject, the rest is mayhem, so far as conventional theory is concerned - but it works fine, as music.
New contributor
add a comment |
No, Bach didn't break any rules, because there are no rules. What Bach did was write music that people still want to listen to, a few centuries after he wrote it.
When you read a list of "unbreakable rules* in a theory book, ask yourself one simple question: Did the author of that book ever write any music that is regularly performed today?
Of course in a few cases the answer is "yes," but you are probably not getting your information about "unbreakable rules" from the few "theory books" written by people who are well-known as composers - like Rameau, Schoenberg, or Hindemith, to give three examples.
Incidentally, you didn't mention the other gross "rule breaking" in BWV565: the answer in the fugue isn't even in the right key! It's in the subdominant, not the dominant!! Shock horror!!! Didn't Bach even know the dominant of D was A, not G????!!!!
But if you want to see Bach really mess around with the idea that fugues have "rules", look at Variation 10 of the Goldberg Variations. After a conventional start with subject / answer / subject, the rest is mayhem, so far as conventional theory is concerned - but it works fine, as music.
New contributor
No, Bach didn't break any rules, because there are no rules. What Bach did was write music that people still want to listen to, a few centuries after he wrote it.
When you read a list of "unbreakable rules* in a theory book, ask yourself one simple question: Did the author of that book ever write any music that is regularly performed today?
Of course in a few cases the answer is "yes," but you are probably not getting your information about "unbreakable rules" from the few "theory books" written by people who are well-known as composers - like Rameau, Schoenberg, or Hindemith, to give three examples.
Incidentally, you didn't mention the other gross "rule breaking" in BWV565: the answer in the fugue isn't even in the right key! It's in the subdominant, not the dominant!! Shock horror!!! Didn't Bach even know the dominant of D was A, not G????!!!!
But if you want to see Bach really mess around with the idea that fugues have "rules", look at Variation 10 of the Goldberg Variations. After a conventional start with subject / answer / subject, the rest is mayhem, so far as conventional theory is concerned - but it works fine, as music.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 10 hours ago
guestguest
191
191
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f81489%2fbachs-toccata-and-fugue-in-d-minor-breaks-the-no-parallel-octaves-rule%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Your first video is a piano transcription that is not how Bach originally wrote it or played it. If you listen to fugue played on an organ as originally written, there are no parallel octaves in the statement of the fugue, just a single line of notes. That first video you've linked should not be considered authoritative on the work.
– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago
1
Oh also the moment the video starts is not at all the start of the fugue. It’s smack in the middle of the toccata. The subject of the fugue in question starts on A an octave higher and descends with A remaining a pedal tone. In the linked video, the fugue starts at 2:50.
– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago
Bach didn't break the rule as this rule can't be applied for this compositions and not for the unisono passages. This question has also been answered here: music.stackexchange.com/questions/78011/…
– Albrecht Hügli
9 hours ago