[Smt-talk] First Species Question

[Dmitri Tymoczko]

Let me say one more thing about the Josquin example I passed on.

Many people have suggested (both publicly and privately) that the F is  
an accented passing tone, and indeed the context seems to support that  
reading.  However, it is worth pointing out that theorists often  
prohibit parallel fifths, even when one of the notes is a passing  
tone.  That is, in Renaissance counterpoint, (C4, G4)->(Bb3, F4)->(A3,  
F4) is often illegal, even though the Bb can be described as a passing  
tone.  (My sense is that the underlying progression is pretty rare in  
the Renaissance.)

One issue here is whether it makes sense, in a Renaissance context, to  
speak of a "dissonant perfect fifth."  Or for that matter, a  
"nonstructural perfect fifth."  Perhaps it is more accurate to say we  
have two consecutive perfect fifths, which are by definition consonant.

The issues are subtle, and it's worth treading carefully; there are a  
variety of ways of understanding the passage. I myself favor an  
explanation that says: the passage is totally fine because the voices  
do not move in parallel; for Josquin, perhaps, the prohibition on  
parallel fifths was a prohibition on a certain kind of motion (voices  
actually moving in parallel), and not on a certain kind of harmonic  
state (two fifths in succession).

Why do I care about this?

I am interested in the thought that the conception of "forbidden  
parallels" evolved over time.  I like the idea that earlier composers  
were more focused on a specific type of motion, while later composers  
were more focused on a general harmonic situation.  It helps explain  
phenomena that I've noticed before -- for instance, that Palestrina  
and Lassus will permit parallel-ish things that later composers  
generally avoid, or that Bach will sometimes get out of parallels in a  
cheap way, as if reverting to the older conception in a pinch.

What particularly interests me here is the thought that it's another  
way in which we can see composers becoming increasingly aware of the  
harmonic dimension of music; usually, we understand this as a matter  
of becoming more aware of chords and how they move.  (That is, the  
growing tendency to think of chords as objects that progress in  
certain specific ways, rather than being byproducts of melodic  
motion.)  But it's interesting to see a similar phenomenon occurring  
in the treatment of antiparallel and contrary-motion fifths.  Here the  
harmonic perspective leads to an increased sensitivity to these pseudo- 
parallels.

Pedagogically, this leads to differences of opinion between theorists  
like Schenker (who reject antiparallel fifths, and to that extent are  
more "harmonic" in their approach) and Lewin (who, as Ed Gollin  
reminded me, permitted antiparallels, and to that extent is more  
"linear").

DT

Dmitri Tymoczko
Associate Professor of Music
310 Woolworth Center
Princeton, NJ 08544-1007
(609) 258-4255 (ph), (609) 258-6793 (fax)
http://music.princeton.edu/~dmitri