Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri, 10 May 2002 10:21:50 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
William Copper:
>There are rules that are valid for a long period of music, and others
>that are very specific to one style. Steve Schwartz said, that to write
>complex counterpoint that allows parallel fifths is just as easy as to
>write complex counterpoint that does not allow them; sorry, Steve, that
>just is not true when using traditional tonality
Well, first, we're left with the problem of defining "traditional tonality."
If it's "voice leading that avoids parallel fifths," we then have a circular
definition, and it's no good arguing at all. If we take a more general view
of tonality -- ie, music which employs functional movement among established
key centers -- then parallel fifths are a non-issue, since there's nothing
in their use that precludes establishing a key center or moving from one to
the next.
I'm singing in a performance next week of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis
(chorus, natch) and found a marvelous progression in the Credo, just before
the quick version of the "Et vitam venturi" fugue -- G to A in a Bb context
-- which sounds like parallel fifths but isn't, at least not in the vocal
score. Cool!
Steve Schwartz
|
|
|