Are Parallel Fifths and Octaves Really Forbidden? 

I'm curious. Have you heard of Wim Winters and his Whole Beat Practice?

However, Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 16 does contain a perfect fifth->perfect fifth in the second movement (in thr G minor section)

In both cases in the Mozart sonata, the upper voice moves up before the lower one does, turning the 5ths into 6ths.

In fact, you have stated the exact thing that those who avoid parallel fifths and octaves. They destroy independence. So if you want write independent lines, they are not good options.

I AGREE WITH THIS. This truly explains what happens when you use them, i.e strengthens it because of how consonant the sound and if you really wish to express independence you avoid it. Making it seem like a bad thing limits the student and really doesn't explain why.

Which is why parallel octaves are more of an afterthought in this video.

@@MusicaUniversalis Parallel octaves are even worse than fifths in voice-leading though. Doubling octaves have nothing to do with parallels in voice-leading and the two should never be confused.

@@SpaghettiToaster A nuance not properly explained in many theory courses to be honest. Beethoven seems to think they are less offensive in his contrapuntal piano music. But in the case of the Hammerklavier Fugue he’s probably just trying to imitate orchestral octave voice doubling.

@@MusicaUniversalisI think that theory doesn’t place enough emphasis on the fact that the rules of voice leading and counterpoint were designed with the human voice in mind. In Palestrina’s time, a mass for 4 voices meant 4 voices both functionally and literally. Avoiding parallel harmonies, including parallel octaves (and even limiting parallel 3rds and 6ths) makes a lot more practical sense once you consider each voice as having to be sung as an equal and independent part. A voice cannot be independent if all it’s doing is running parallel to its neighbor, and the parallel harmony would throw off the balance of the ensemble in favor of whatever line is being harmonized at the fifth or octave, thereby diminishing the independence of the remaining voices. It only makes sense to avoid this approach on principle if your goal is to write polyphonic music with complex counterpoint for a handful of voices, as was the case for Palestrina.

@@MusicaUniversalis Well yes, in practice and especially in keyboard music, I'd say that (bare) octaves are less offensive than (bare) fifths in general. In free composition, it's of course not uncommon to freely move between part-writing and chordal doublings, and in thick writing, you can have both octaves and fifths that are totally unoffensive. Beethoven also likes to use octaves on the keyboard just to emphasize a line and make it sound more powerful, probably in an attempt to get out of the fortepianos of his time something more akin to a modern piano sound. Bare fifths, on the other hand, just sound terrible on the keyboard. I think one of the most interesting instances of octaves in counterpuntal music is BWV 855, where Bach just has a full bar and a half of parallel octaves, in a two-voice fugue of all things. Nobody ever seems to talk about this one. But is clearly shows that even in counterpuntal music, it is totally fine to write parallel octaves as long as you make sure to treat it the same way as you would having a voice drop out and playing another one twice as loud. The Bach example is especially interesting because the octaves come and go in the middle of a phrase, not after a cadence or as some kind of interlude.

Same.

I've heard that too and I'm not sure how much I agree with that. Yes, unequal fifths and unequal octaves are a thing, but I would consider them to be a special case of parallels that are worse than ordinary parallels in a contrapuntal context. I mean, B-F moving to C-G and D-A moving to E-B are both fifths where both voices are moving by step in the same direction. In this sense, they are both "Parallel Fifths". But while I would say that D-A moving to E-B is perfectly fine in some contrapuntal contexts(inner voices of a 4 part chorale for example), I would not say the same of B-F moving to C-G. This is because of the slight interval differences. In the case of D-A moving to E-B, both fifths are perfect. Because of that, I would say to use it sparingly in counterpoint, but I would also say that in some cases like the inner voices of a 4 part chorale, it's okay to use it. In the case of B-F moving to C-G however, you have a diminished fifth moving to a perfect fifth, an unequal parallel fifth as I'd call it. This, I would absolutely forbid in a contrapuntal context and strongly discourage in other contexts where parallel fifths are used because it's a dissonance moving to a consonance, but not correctly in a contrapuntal context. Dissonances in counterpoint *must* be resolved either via oblique motion, where one voice stays still, or contrary motion, where both voices move in opposite directions. For a diminished fifth, that means 4 possible resolutions by half step and 2 more if you consider the whole step resolutions just as valid, like this: Half step resolutions: - B-F -> B-F# Discouraged, but not forbidden - B-F -> Bb-F Discouraged, but not forbidden(Indeed, both of these diminished fifth to perfect fifth resolutions via oblique motion are perfectly okay in the harmonic context of a diminished seventh and are behind the common tone diminished seventh) - B-F -> C-E Strongly encouraged - B-F -> Bb-Gb Strongly encouraged Whole step resolutions: - B-F -> B-G - B-F -> A-F Unequal fifths don't do this because both voices are moving in the same direction.

@@caterscarrots3407 Well, for me, I think the opposite. In my opinion, a diminished or augmented fifth moving to a perfect fifth is considered acceptable and does not constitute parallel fifths. The reason for this has to do with the main idea of parallel fifths and octaves: two voices that are either a fifth or an octave apart may sound like one because they have overtones in common. Take the note B as an example: its first overtone is an octave higher (B), while the second overtone is a twelfth higher (F#). When B and F# are played together, they sound hollow because both voices share the same overtone, which is F#. Therefore, the harmonic progression from B-F# to C-G will sound like a single note going a step higher because both voices do not sound independent. However, B and F do not have overtones in common and are harmonically dissonant. Hence, the two voices in the progression from B-F to C-G are more distinguishable and can, therefore, be accepted. For some reason, this harmonic progression may sound displeasing because we would expect the note F to resolve to an E since they are just a semitone apart.

@@carlkohweihao9584 But it’s exactly this displeasing harmonic progression, this diminished fifth moving to a perfect fifth that makes me feel like it’s way worse in a contrapuntal context because incorrect dissonance treatment. If I had this happening in a canon for instance, I’d immediately modify it to get rid of it because of the incorrect dissonance treatment. I’d rather have a brief, hollow sound than an incorrectly treated dissonance. Or in other words, yes, I’d rather have a parallel fifth than an unequal fifth in a chorale harmonization. Really though, if I’m going to have a parallel perfect consonance in something other than a chorale, like a fugue or something, I’d rather it be octaves. And this is not to say that I don’t avoid parallel fifths and octaves whenever possible in a contrapuntal context, I do. But if parallel or unequal perfect consonances are for some reason unavoidable, I’d rather it be parallel than unequal and I’d rather it be octaves than fifths.

Alice in chains>

Thought I watched your Beethoven video

there was a section of a fugue i was studying that had the top and bass voices in (transpositions of) octaves and fifths in some places, and the independence between the two was moreso by differences in rhythm and just much contrary motion there was

The power chord is basically every 80s metal band's bread and butter

Debussy: 1st Prelude from the 1st "Livre"

Even more simple: Counterpoint is the technique to achieve a well-balanced polyphonic or homophonic texture.

1:58

because even for homophonic, and melody + accompaniment writing in the past they still usually avoided parallel fifths as much as possible (being more homogenous structures still made by stacking independent lines), but youre right the use of power chords is not really about voice leading but a matter of how distortion changes the sound of a guitar

they already did that in the 20th century lol

Yes, because of psychoaccoustics. Because the octave and the fifth are the first two overtones above a note, they blend much more easily into a single note with a different timbre. You can hear this in orchestral doublings at the octace, where you never feel like you're listening to multiple voices, but just a single voice with a new sound, depending on the mixture of instruments. Thirds and sixths are so far removed from the fundamental in the overtone series that we can easily perceive them as separate.

@@SpaghettiToaster Separate, yes, but hardly independent. How can a voice be called independent if it is shadowing another voice at the third or sixth?

@@brendanward2991 That's just semantics. If you can distinguish them from one another, they're two voices and that's all that matters. Of course, you'd never write a full phrase of uninterrupted parallel thirds and call it counterpoint. But the point is, if you make sure your voices never move in parallel fifths or octaves, you have a choice to do with them whatever you like, from a simple accompaniment of parallel first inversion triads to the most complex fugue, with even the possibility to move from one to the other, with each individual voice always remaining audible to the listener. That's what independence means. What you do with that independence is up to you. On the other hand, if your voices are not independent, that is, they feature parallel fifths and octaves, you have to be aware that the listener will probably perceive these instances as a temporary loss of a voice, and compose accordingly. For example, in a strict three-part canon, it would just sound trash to have the third voice drop out at random times for no good reason. Just like you wouldn't write a long oboe melody where random notes in the middle are suddenly played by a trumpet.

@@SpaghettiToaster "If you can distinguish them from one another, they're two voices and that's all that matters." So parallel fifths are OK if one voice is played by, say, a trumpet and the other by a violin, making it easy to "distinguish them from one another"? "Of course, you'd never write a full phrase of uninterrupted parallel thirds and call it counterpoint" - So parallel thirds are now banned unless they last less than a phrase? Now you're just making up new rules. The fact is that the occurrence of odd isolated parallel fifths does not destroy voice-independence, and yet even Classical composers avoided such fifths as a general rule. It's almost as though they were avoiding parallel fifths because they had been taught to avoid them--not because there was a very good musical reason why they ought to be avoided.

@@brendanward2991 So parallel fifths are OK if one voice is played by, say, a trumpet and the other by a violin, making it easy to "distinguish them from one another"? No, because it won't be easy. That's the whole principle behind orchestral doubling. You can double almost any combination of instruments at the octave and get a new timbre, almost never easily distinguishable voices. "So parallel thirds are now banned unless they last less than a phrase? Now you're just making up new rules." I never said anything about thirds being banned. It is totally permissible in baroque voice leading to have parallel thirds for as long as you want. You just wouldn't call it counterpoint. In fact it is very common in baroque music to have long stretches of parallel 63 chords (first inversion chords) as accompaniment. "The fact is that the occurrence of odd isolated parallel fifths does not destroy voice-independence" Not true, it destroys it immediately, almost as surely as parallel octaves or parallel unisons would. "even Classical composers avoided such fifths as a general rule. It's almost as though they were avoiding parallel fifths because they had been taught to avoid them--not because there was a very good musical reason why they ought to be avoided." The reason parallel fifths are uncommon in classical music is that they are almost as destructive to voice independence as octaves, but less useful in doubling. Hence, there is usually no good reason to write them. If you want to distinguish between voices in a passage, you're better off not writing them. If you don't and you want to meld multiple voices into one new voice with different timbre, octaves sound better than fifths.

ok

Read a book... Or get hearing aids idk

@@aquapillareilleahpar3129hey nice name 👍👌