[Smt-talk] Bach Quiz

[Olli Väisälä]

First, comments to Dmitri,  thanks for your summary concerning the  
chorales.

>
> 	3) At the level of the "quarter-note rhythmic reduction" (i.e. the  
> reduction you get when you remove eighth-note chordal skips from  
> quarter-note harmonies) you get a much wider array of parallels  
> that can involve octaves and the bass.  Allyn's example is in this  
> category.  So chordal skips seem to be a more powerful way of  
> hiding parallels than suspensions, anticipations, and incomplete  
> neighbors.

Actually, I think we should distinguish between two slightly  
different categories. (1) Cases in which fifths or octaves in the  
underlying voice leading are removed by consonant chordal skips. A  
very clear example: Art of Fugue, Contrapunctus 1, m. 69: both alto  
and bass go at the quarter-note level from A to G, but the latter is  
embellished by an A–F skip in eighth-notes, producing a 8–10–8  
succession. (2) Cases in which it is the chordal skip that brings  
about the near fifths, as in Allyn's example (WTC I, Bb-major Fugue,  
mm. 41–42). Here the Eb is the governing bass that would be shown at  
any reductive level, and its embellishment through arpeggiation  
brings about the G and the fifths. Here the interval succession is 5– 
7–5. Since 7 is dissonant, it is less efficient, I believe, in  
removing the fifths, unless the context clarifies that the 7 is  
governing, as here. (But I am of course interested whether this  
belief proves to be confirmed by statistical data.)

> The upshot is that if you want to characterize Bach's practice with  
> respect to parallel fifths, you need different rules for different  
> structural levels.  I find this really interesting, both  
> methodologically and pedagogically.  One possible implication:  
> given the prevalence of parallels of type 2 (above), it is perhaps  
> inefficient to teach students to avoid parallels at the level of  
> the harmonic skeleton, only to change the rules on them later and  
> allow these parallels to be disguised with nonharmonic tones.  This  
> is the strategy in Aldwell and Schachter, for example (which, of  
> all the common textbooks I know, has the most accurate description  
> of Bach's practice).

Here, I find it difficult to follow your thoughts on pedagogy. After  
all, it is usually good pedagogy to start from simple cases and  
proceed to more complex ones. Moreover, WHEN Bach used skeleton-like  
Satz (as in WTC I, Prelude in C major), he of course did not have any  
parallel 5ths or 8ves.

>
> PS. I know that there is extensive discussion of the "afterbeat  
> fifths" in the Schenkerian literature -- for instance, Schenker, in  
> his Counterpoint text, admits the upper-voice parallels of type 2  
> above, while Matthew Brown, in his book, seeks to banish parallels  
> from all reduction levels.  If anyone could point me to some other  
> relevant texts, I would be grateful.
>

I do not know about extensive discussion, but on the basis of my  
personal experience, convincing and meaningful Schenkerian analysis  
becomes impossible if we follow Brown's principle. Schenker and his  
mainstream followers have not subscribed to it, and I do not know any  
reason why one should. (As far as Schenker is concerned, you don't  
have to go farther than the first page of musical examples in Free  
Composition to find outer-voice parallel 5ths.)

***

Second, Ed Gollin's Example from WTC II, Prelude in Bb Minor was not  
a direct 5–5 succession; hence it won't qualify as an answer for the  
original quiz.

***

Third, Stephen Heinemann pointed out (in a private mail) that we  
might hear even parallel octaves in WTC I, Prelude in D major, m. 7,  
latter half, going from B–B to A–A, even though these octaves are  
visually removed by voice crossing. As a hint, I might note that the  
"correct" answer to my quiz also involves crossing voices, but with  
the REVERSE effect...

Olli Väisälä
Sibelius Academy
ovaisala at siba.fi

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20121117/c0db6f80/attachment-0003.htm>