Parallel 5ths

Hi everyone!

I'm not so well informed but I have heard from lots of places now that using parallel 5ths is sort of 'not allowed'. Why not??? Is this ALWAYS true? Is it impossible to write music with parallel 5ths?

I've had this tune in my head for some time and then I realised that it's made up of parallel 5ths. If someone can help me, I'd really appreciate that. Thank you!

parallel_5.mid

Within the rules of conventional harmony, they are indeed prohibited. However, your melody is clearly modern, so you don't necessarily have to subscribe to these rules.

The reason they are not allowed is because parallel 5ths constitute non-functional harmony. That is to say, because they don't contain the 3rd degree of the scale, the harmony is too weak to be considered worthwhile, or functional. If you Google it you will find more information.

I found the reason to be that parallel fifths are a) too stable, and so don't allow for the melody to cintinue, and b) they detract from independence of line.

Thanks!

So for example, if I keep two solo instruments playing this tune, while perhaps one of the remaining instruments plays the missing 3rd, that will be within the rules of conventional harmony, I guess.? ;)

BTW... I like thin harmonies which are perhaps a bit irregular.

It all depends really. Rules such as parallel fifths and octaves and hidden fifths and octaves should not be seen as "rules" per say, but more as "working guidlines" that generally make your music sound better. For example, it's okay to break the rules only if you know them. If your melody is built on parralel fifths, then there is nothing wrong with it. However, if you are writing a four part piece of music in a classical-romantic setting, where melody is key, than no matter what, parallel fifths will make it sound amateurish. It's just the way it is. There are many ways to avoid parallel fifths, but that's what separates the amateurs from the professionals.

They say that to be an artist, one must no exactly what he is doing. If you accidently put in a parallel fifth, than its a mistake. However, if its done PURPOSEFULLY, than its okay. Same thing goes for Dominant 7 resolutions and such, as well as never using the seventh chord, vii in root position, but instead try second. More like building a house, you gotta know how to lay the bricks properly, and you can still come up with some pretty crazy architecture.

I am never worried about mistakes such as this, because I write music that sounds appealing to the ear (hopefully!) and as a result, I naturally avoid parallel 4ths and 5ths without even worrying about it. I am sure I have made some mistakes down the line, but they would be too hard to catch anyway, and too few.

The point is, if you want to create music that sounds monk-like or modern, then you will naturally compose 4ths and 5ths. If you want to compose music that sounds appealing to the ear, you will naturally, for the most part avoid 4ths and 5ths. It's just a matter of knowing what you want.

You are the composer, and you are free to make up your own rules. As others have said, just know what style you are composing in so you can justify yourself if need be.

My own personal rule for my style of music is, parallel octaves are desirable for emphasis. So for me, parallel octaves are a must. That goes against traditional harmony. So what.

I Quote:

the oldest form of Europian polyphonic music of whichexamples are preserved for us is the socalled parallel organum (about 900 A.D.). By "parallel organum"is meant the principle of musical construction by which a principle voice or part, generally a sacred "Gregorian" melody, ia accompanied by one or more voices (by doublings in octaves) chiefly in parallel fourths or fifths.

Well, we have to understand that our ear is conditioned by music practice and theory since the middleages.

But in the process we might have lost means of expression. So I adhire the opinion that you can do what ever works in a given situation.

Thanks guys! One more thing... if I am supposedly prohibited to use parallel 5ths because it doesn't bring in the harmony totally, then why can I use a 3rd or a 6th? I mean... OK, this might have sounded very stupid, but imagine if i use C and E in a way that doesn't bring out the harmony... is that allowed?

Thanks guys! One more thing... if I am supposedly prohibited to use parallel 5ths because it doesn't bring in the harmony totally, then why can I use a 3rd or a 6th? I mean... OK, this might have sounded very stupid, but imagine if i use C and E in a way that doesn't bring out the harmony... is that allowed?[/b]

So perhaps a 3rd or a 6th can be unappealing to the ear while a 4th, 5th, or 8th is!

My own personal rule for my style of music is, parallel octaves are desirable for emphasis. So for me, parallel octaves are a must. That goes against traditional harmony. So what.

I totally agree with what you've said, but I think parallel octaves are actually permissible if the two parts are simply doubling each other (which they probably would be)

I totally agree with what you've said, but I think parallel octaves are actually permissible if the two parts are simply doubling each other (which they probably would be)

What else can parallel octaves do? If I make a flute and a clarinet play the same tune, with the clarinet an octave lower, to produce an interesting timbre, is that bad?

Nah that should be fine.

You can have parallel octaves, which arent just doubling, say for instance when two parts move in parallel octaves, but then continue doing different things. In this way, only for a few notes, they were paralled octaves, but werent doubling.

Can someone recommend a good book that deals with this sort of stuff? :P

It would be really cool...

But you see, you don't NEED to use parallel octaves when you can usually have the same effect by following the rules.

You see, by studying the rules of harmony, you learn many ways in going around the rules. It's like constructing a building. Any melody can work, no matter how complex, and you can always create the most stirring harmonies WITHOUT using parralel fifths or octaves. In the world of tonal music, parralel fifths and octaves, unless of course they're being doubled by multiple instruments, are sloppy. Parallel octaves and fifths have an uneven feel, and even when they're used "for effect" that's usually just an excuse, and it's like saying that your car's going to have just three wheels "for effect."

When working with four part harmonies, you can learn so many ways in avoiding parralels, and they all will make your music sound so much better than if you had them.

Always remember though, that harmonies should not be taken as a "vertical concept", but more as a linear concept. Musical line is always the most important thing, and you can always make wonderful musical lines by following the rules of harmony, and they will generally be far better than if you didn't. It's just the way tonal music is.

But let me make this part clear. Common practice harmonies are GENERALLY meant for four voices, like an SATB choir, or a string quartet, or a brass quartet, or whatever.

If you have more than four voices, then there are different rules. For example, usually with a string orchestra, where there are five voices (Violins I, II, Viola, Cello, Bass), the bass and the cello more often than not play parallel octaves.

Just remember that balance and musical line are the most critical thing to worry about.

Why not??? Is this ALWAYS true? Is it impossible to write music with parallel 5ths? [/b]

Because it sounds like that MIDI you attached.

Rules like that are meant to be broken in modern music. It's quite true that such harmonies are too "ordinary", but in comtemporary music, arguably anything goes, e.g., pop songs, where parallel 5ths will actually sound good, and perhaps better than overly dynamic harmonies.

However, if you're composing for an assignment or in, say, a Baroque style, it's probably not the best idea to use parallel 5ths. I don't actually know too much about this topic at all, but that's what I would logically assume. Are parallel 5ths "banned" completely, or is it acceptable to use them, say, twice in a piece?

Rules like that are meant to be broken in modern music. It's quite true that such harmonies are too "ordinary", but in comtemporary music, arguably anything goes, e.g., pop songs, where parallel 5ths will actually sound good, and perhaps better than overly dynamic harmonies.

However, if you're composing for an assignment or in, say, a Baroque style, it's probably not the best idea to use parallel 5ths. I don't actually know too much about this topic at all, but that's what I would logically assume. Are parallel 5ths "banned" completely, or is it acceptable to use them, say, twice in a piece? [/b]

I think it's ok to use them sometimes in inner voices, but I think it's either got them or it's got none, not some - which would probably be the result of sloppy writing.

However, if you're composing for an assignment or in, say, a Baroque style, it's probably not the best idea to use parallel 5ths. I don't actually know too much about this topic at all, but that's what I would logically assume. Are parallel 5ths "banned" completely, or is it acceptable to use them, say, twice in a piece?

Bach, Mozart, etc. would have avoided them at all costs, and almost invariably did. That said, there are a couple of examples among Bach's over 300 chorales where illegal parallels occur. One would assume that either Bach was having a bad day (he was a human being, after all, and did make mistakes), or he made an educated decision that breaking the illegal parallels rule in that particular instance was his most effective option. Musicologists like to believe Bach did everything on purpose; I believe he made occasional mistakes in haste or fatigue...the man had a lot on his plate.

I've also heard performances of French music of the middle Baroque with parallel fifths at cadence points, probably due to performance conventions (see the attached example). They're handled differently in Bach, Handel, etc and in later French music.

What one finds in baroque and classical music is that parallel fifths function as a sort of sticking point - it's a place where the melody catches your attention, because two voices move in parallel stable harmonies. I mean, think about a set of paired melodies where they're going along contrapuntally and then all of a sudden, they both move in a single parallel fifth. It makes it stand out, almost like an implied cadence. Compositionally, this is how it is used.

Yea, and that is EXACTLY how I'd like to use them in my piece.

Btw, I am never trying to imitate Bach or Mozart or the Baroque style or whatever, my music may have influences of all of them surely, but I agree with zephyrclaw.

I think modern composers can surely break rules like that.

:w00t:

Yea, and that is EXACTLY how I'd like to use them in my piece.

Btw, I am never trying to imitate Bach or Mozart or the Baroque style or whatever, my music may have influences of all of them surely, but I agree with zephyrclaw.

I think modern composers can surely break rules like that.

;)

I think the imporatant thing here is:

if there is a "rule", then there is a reason to it.

I don't mean that the rule is absolute.

I mean that contextually it has its reason for being.

Once you understand how to apply the rule to traditional harmony, then you can understand what its effect wil be in non-traditional harmony.

in tonal harmony, parallel 5ths are prohibited except for one single exception (the resolution of a particular form of 7th chord).

parallel octaves are another matter.

in an orchestral context a clarinet doubling a flute is not considered "parallel". it is a "doubling" and has no analytical function in harmony.

parallel 4ths, while rather weak sounding, are not prohibited per se in common practice, unless the 4th is the lowest voice (making the chords 6/4 chords... which can only be used in certain restricted contexts... again, in common practice harmony).

your theme has an oriental flavour to it, where parallel 4ths and 5ths are "common practice". if you suddenly turn to common practice harmony for the continuation of your theme, then the opening section - built as it is on parallelism - will sound jarring and inappropriate.

the easiest thing to remember about harmony rules is:

if you don't understand the rule, then don't break it.

if you don't bother with harmony rules when you write, then don't worry about it.

Excellent. ;)

I'd only add to that final summation a further exception:

If you don't bother with harmony rules when you write, then don't worry about it...that is, unless you're writing in a traditional idiom (Classical, Baroque, etc), in which case you would do much better to understand and apply these rules.

Excellent. ;)

I'd only add to that final summation a further exception:

If you don't bother with harmony rules when you write, then don't worry about it...that is, unless you're writing in a traditional idiom (Classical, Baroque, etc), in which case you would do much better to understand and apply these rules.

LOL

thank-you J.

yes, that sort of goes without saying.

Not around here it doesn't. ;) I tend to have lots of arguments with folks about that point.

the reason parralell 5ths are considered "bad" is stricktly because they destroy the independance of the line and that they draw attention to themselves because of thier hollow sound. "but" and this is a big but. artisically they can be used to great effect.

think of it this way,if your composition calls for a hollow empty sound,like if you were scoring for a film or stage and you need to be descriptive with the music(this is called "tone painting").then you would definately want to use them.

but when we study harmony and counterpoint we are we study Bach for harmonyand counterpoint and Plaestrina just for counterpoint.of course there are others but when you can understand these two guys you can understand the others.now ,the style of Bach is very poylphonic as is ofcourse Palestrina,but many people put Bach into the category of the Baroque without noticing that he is still deeply rooted in the reneissance.he was like the pivot bettween the 2 periods of music so he is a bit of both.now what does polyphonic music of that period call for? "INDEPENDANCE" of line and harmonic clarity.parralel 5ths destroy both of these things.the reason why you can do parralell 3rds and 6ths is because you will find that when you use them 1 will be a major and before long one will end up a minor for eg;the interval E..G followed by F..A.they are moving in parrallel but one is a 3rd and the other is a b3rd,so we still have movement and independance.the other reason is the harmonic ricjness of a 3rd or 6th.this richness comes from a more complex frequencey ratio that exist bettween the minor intervals as compared to the major ones and also because of the difference tones that are produced in you are when you haer these intervals.when a minor 3rd interval sounds on its own your ear produces a difference tone an octave below the bottom note ,and the pitch of that note is the missing root.eg;the interval E..G produces a difference tone C.this is why you can leave the root out of a chord.because it is strongly implyed by the difference tone. but 5ths produce difference tones that equall and support the bottom note and because of the simple simple frequencey ratio that exists bettween them ,they lack harmonic richness.

but their use is definately style specific,and for special effects they are a great tool.if you were scoring for a chinese film you would use them heaps cause they sound extremely oriental,and if you wanted to portray emptiness and despare in a film or play they are exelent for that too. i see it so many times that some students of composition dont really undersand why we learn these rules. its not the students fault ,but the teachers.every question is explainable and if your teacher cant answer these things in a way that you can undersand then you need another one.to finish off ,every single "rule" we have in coposition ends up being an artistic tool that can be used to stuning effect in the right situation. bye the way this is a great forum and congratulations to the guys who set it up.