Parallel fifths
Dan Thoma
As I understand it, parallel fifths are verboten in "regular" rules of composition but permissible in Sacred Harp. Off the top of my head, I could only think of two songs where I was aware of parallel fifths: 159 Wondrous Love and 454 The Better Land. In Wondrous Love, they appear in measures 6 and 7 between the basses and the tenors, sound weird and wonderful, and AFAIK this really sets the Sacred Harp setting of this tune apart from other settings. In The Better Land, they appear at the beginning of the fuging section between the basses and the trebles, although the second note (E flat and A) isn't a perfect fifth.
Upon a quick perusal, I also identified 324 North Port, with the basses and trebles going at it in the first two measures of each brace. In 275 Loving-Kindness, the first three notes of the basses parallel the altos and the trebles. Three notes seems kinda trivial.
A bunch of questions arise. Why are parallel fifths verboten in "regular" composition? Why aren't they in Sacred Harp? Is there a minimum threshold for a sequence to be meaningfully considered parallel fifths? Would power chords by a rock guitarist count? Have you used or stumbled into parallel fifths in your own compositions? Are there other clear examples in the Sacred Harp that I've missed?
Thanks in advance for all your thoughts & wisdom!
Sincerely,
Dan Thoma
Penny Anderson
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fasola Songwriters" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fasola-songwrit...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-songwriters/10a87bc0-00ae-493f-9912-b299a426a35b%40comcast.net.
Leah Velleman
--
Jonathan Een Newton
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-songwriters/1b9911bd-78f1-4914-b780-9eb68a02fa68%40app.fastmail.com.
Wade Kotter
Robert Vaughn
R. C. Webber
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-songwriters/996993422.375146.1775157084098%40mail.yahoo.com.
Nikos Pappas
It all depends on your definition of what makes a dissonance. Some people like to take the dyad vs. triad approach as outlined by music scholars beginning with Seeger in the 1940s. This approach is based on observation of what happens in the music and attempts to systematize it using analytical approaches derived from that of classical theory.
I will not say that I am more correct than these scholars; however, I have a different approach to understanding harmony in shape-note music. My approach takes the system as outlined by the musicians themselves in the rudiments and works with their understandings. I’m attempting to not impose my “system” on it, but rather to understand how they viewed and understood music and harmony.
For me there are a few general precepts to this music.
1. The idea of concord vs. discord.
a) There are two types of concords, perfect and imperfect.
b) Perfect concords are the unison, octave, and the perfect fifth.
c) Imperfect concords are thirds and sixths. Dissonances then are seconds, sevenths, fourths, and (though unnamed occur in the music) the tritone.
d) A fourth below the melody is allowable at important cadential points because it will sound the perfect fifth against the bass.
e) What we term as second inversion chords are what shape-note musicians termed the “greater fourth” and are allowed on strong beats.
2. The concept of resolution
a. Writers in the rudiments talk about what is in essence a concept of tension and release whereby for each dissonance occurring in a tune there has to be a resolution of sorts. The metaphor they use is that of a vinegar (discord) and a sweet (concord). You always have to add sugar to counteract the bitterness of the vinegar. English psalmodist John Arnold explained in The Compleat Psalmodist (1753): “Discords, when duly taken, render the Concords more sweet and delightful; which are admitted into Music two several Ways; viz. by Pass [meaning passing tones] and by Way of Binding [that is suspensions and neighbor tones].” Baptist Caleb Ashworth in his 1753 Collection found that “discords are sometimes admitted into composition for the sake of variety, to be an echo to the sends when the sentiment is harsh, and to make the following concords the more pleasing to the ear.”
b. This concept also extends to the resolution of imperfect to perfect concords. It explains why the final sonority of a tune in its original setting does not have an imperfect third, but only an open perfect unison, octave, and fifth. Later writers in the early 20th century in providing alto lines occasionally introduce an imperfect third when the original setting only had perfect concords. There are of course exceptions. Ashworth also stated that “a discord should commonly lead to an imperfect, rather than a perfect concord; (for instance, a seventh to a sixth, and a fourth to a third, rather than an eighth, or fifth) and to the next, and not a remote concord.”
3. The concept of parallels
a. Unlike standard classical theory parallel fifths and octaves are allowed and even prescribed by writers. Parallels were termed “consecutions” in the literature and described by William Tans’ur in Book III of A New Musical Grammar, and Dictionary (London, 1756). He wrote: “in the Composition of Three, or more Parts, that you do not make a Consecution of two, or more Perfects of one Kind together, from the Bass, unless it be covered by a Higher Part, which often happens when the Tenor makes a 5th or 8th [octave], (being then the Highest-Part), and makes a Consecution of the same Kind, either ascending or descending: To prevent such like Passages great Care ought to be taken.”
b. However, when more parts are added, Tans’ur was more lenient and equated them with the use of dissonance: “neither two Fifths, nor two Eighths may not move together in Four Parts, especially between the Tenor and Bass: But it may be allowable in the Contra [alto], if it be covered by a Higher Part. – Discords, and Disallowances are easier tolerated in Four Parts, than in Two or Three; by Reason their several Parts will screen many small Disallowances.” Arnold also echoed this sentiment: "two Fifths, or two Eighths, may be taken together in four Parts, rather than spoil the Air of the Tunes; but let it be between one of the upper Parts and the Bass, by Reason of the Tenor’s being between the upper Parts and the Bass, it will be easier tolerated.”
c. American musicians took these principles to heart but over the course of the nineteenth century, allowed more chains of parallels/ consecutions before resolving them to other intervals.
4. Most musicians did not differentiate octave transpositions between treble, alto, and tenor parts. Although they understood that men and women sung in different octaves, the musical pitches on the staff rarely reflect this difference. As a result, these parts are seen as being in the same octave for the purpose of harmonization.
5. Psalmodists took two general approaches to adding harmony parts. All used the same general procedure of writing the tune first, then adding the bass, then the treble, and finally the alto. However, there were two big differences:
a. Make sure that all of the harmony parts agree with each other
b. Allow for general agreement at important cadential places, but allow greater independence among the voices based upon their relationship to the cantus or melody (that is the tenor)
c. This is where we get into the thorny nature of what actually is a dissonance. Dissonances can be created coincidentally by consonances in the relationship of one harmonized voice to the tenor against another harmonized voice.
Let me give you some examples in The Sacred Harp as a way to look at dissonance, consonance, and consecutions.
Amsterdam (84) is a good illustration of consonance and dissonance (as passing tones), along with the use of consecutions that follow the rules above. The harmonized voices not only agree with the tenor/cantus but the other harmonized voices as well. Pieces by Billings and many by Read take the same general approach. I’m going to ignore the Mason/Bradbury/Hastings tunes in the book and instead focus on examples by 18th-century psalmodists and 19th-century shape-note settings.
Clamanda (42) – m. 5-6 “way to Canaan’s land.” Let’s break down this measure. First I’ll look at the relationship of the parts to the cantus. Then I’ll compare them together.
1. Tenor and Bass: This measure begins with a perfect fifth that continues as a consecution to the next sonority with a passing (pass) dissonant fourth in the tenor (la-sol). This dissonance is then treated to a consecution for the next two sonorities until it is resolved to an octave in measure six.
2. Tenor and alto: this measure begins with a perfect consonant octave, followed by an imperfect consonant sixth with a passing perfect fifth to establish a dissonant fourth before being resolved to a unison la on the last beat of the measure.
3. Tenor and treble: begin with a perfect fifth followed by the passing dissonant fourth in the treble that is resolved to the unison in the next beat. This is in turn followed by a passing imperfect consonant third before resolving to a fifth. Now there is a consecution of the fifth that continues into the final beat followed by a lower neighbor (binding) dissonant fourth that resolves to a perfect fifth.
4. The person who set this tune followed standard procedures within the idiom and never introduced more than two consecutions before resolving to other concords. Likewise, the use of dissonance follows standard procedure. However, they did not conceive the harmonized lines together, but rather maintained their independence to each other. As a result, beat two features the coincidental dissonance of the la in the bass against the sol in the alto even though the alto-tenor is an imperfect consonant sixth, and the bass is a perfect consonant fifth.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fasola-songwriters/CAAmEMHvG%3DOx_mH7b0zx5gTo7aOzr6w77OHU8UU3AR93O79j48A%40mail.gmail.com.