I may get some flack for saying this, but my personal rule for parallel fifths is this: as long as they are mixed in with other harmony notes (such as in 4 part harmony), most of the time, they are OK. By themselves, yes, they have that bare, Medieval sound (which is sometimes useful, if that’s what you’re looking for), but it is my belief that only the most gifted listeners will care about them when they are part of a more complicated harmonic structure (I am not one of those gifted listeners). I believe that the finished product, the sound itself, is more important than the rule. If it sounds good, do it. Besides, this is the 21st Century, and I do not want to sound like Handel or Bach, as much as I love their music.
I avoid them, but I bend the rules, somewhat following your logic, Mike. If they don’t do damage, and there’s just no way out of a pickle, I don’t lose sleep over them. For me, it’s parallel octaves that tend to hit the ear much harder, particularly if they occur soprano/bass. Those I cannot abide unless the work is stylistically exploiting the effect of parallels.
parallel 5ths are dependent on the harmonic language being used.
my music is redolent of parallel 5ths, they are part and parcel of the harmony itself.
parallel octaves are, basically, always wrong.
contrapuntally they imply the disappearance of a voice.
I agree, Romanos. Because I’m almost a fanatic about contrary motion between the soprano and the bass, I can usually avoid parallel octaves between those parts. Hidden octaves, that’s another story. If using them every now and then allows for smoother part writing in the middle parts, why not?
I’m currently writing editions of 17th-century English anthems, in which the organ part doubles the 5-part chorus, but the surviving organ score just shows the outer voices.
When filling in the middle lines, you suddenly realise that there are consecutive 5ths all over the place, which the composer has “avoided” in the singers by crossing the parts. So, I can show the voicing and be “street legal”, but make it a less readable part with crossed stems; or I can miss out notes (which is supposed to be what consecutives sound like and why you don’t do it, or something.) Or I can keep the consecutives, and it will sound exactly the same, but all the academics will tut.
Not always wrong in Orchestration Ex: Doubling Contrabass and cello an octave apart. Losing (or gaining) a voice can have an emotional or contextual purpose too. I think this kind of rule is more knowing how you get a certain result. But deciding whether that result is the best one for your purposes…
I have done this on occasion, but only if it makes actual sense for the parts. When I write my psalm settings, for instance, I sing through every single part, and will move things around and even change the harmonization, on occasion, to ensure that each part is independently singable. When it comes to reductions, however, I typically try and keep things in the proper spot vertically and then indicate voice crossing with lines, rather than to make the accompanist want to cross their thumbs. It’s a tough call sometimes, however.
Just have Dorico write all your music for you. Bam! No more need to argue over whether it should fix your mistakes. If Dorico makes a mistake then it’s their mistake, not mine. I’m sure a reasonable counterpoint professor would agree… These machines! ugh!
I really love your trope James! Great piece and great singing. An Apotheosis of parallels, witch an excellent taste and some really hearth warming harmonies! (And the educational aspect of “solos” is very nice too.)
Thanks! The original version didn’t have the english, and then I went back and added them in for non-trad Masses. I did the latin only version one time and the (very musically-literate) Priest thanked me after Mass, thinking we had been singing actual medieval music. Made my day.
Romanos, that is very beautiful music. I love the last few beats of harmony.
I think a parallel checker would be a useful tool for some people, like the Musescore plugin. Professionals would not need it, but Dorico is used by many amateurs and students. Having an option to “correct” it , perhaps in a different color or other highlighting, also seems like a good learning tool. But only as an option, of course. There could also be a tool for realizing figured bass, also for students and amateur composers. Meanwhile, professionals can disable these options and everybody is happy!
I’ve been using a calculator for quite a few decades now and don’t really miss my slide rule or long division, ha!
The Generate Notes from Chord Symbols feature introduced in version 4.3 does, in fact, have a parallel 5ths/8ves checker built in, but only for its own auto-generated output. Already then I asked for it to be made available for human-written music too but as of yet, that hasn’t happened.
