Jan Templiner replies to me:

>Speaking of parallel octaves:
>
>>Who forbids them? Why? I could surmise why, but I'm amazed In This Day
>>and Age that anyone takes such strictures seriously, especially real,
>>honest-to-gosh working composers, and not just modern composers, either.
>
>I quite agree here, even though I find it sad.  Nonetheless, it wasn't
>quite my point.  That a rule isn't obeyed by modern composers doesn't
>mean it doesn't exist.

No, but it might mean that it has very little to do with the work of
art that doesn't follow this stricture.  Again, I would make the analogy
with the "no split infinitive" stricture.  Shakespeare split inifinitives.
Shakespeare also uses the double negative as a more intense negative.
Neither stricture against these things has much to do with good writing
but rather concern rather limited notions of style -- even notions which
have very little to do with the structure of the language they purport to
control.

The real tests of the stricture's worth are

1.  Does ignoring it ruin a work?  Why?

2.  Does following it tend to make the work better?  Why?

Steve Schwartz