<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">First, comments to Dmitri, thanks for your summary concerning the chorales.<div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Allyn's example is in this category.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>So chordal skips seem to be a more powerful way of hiding parallels than suspensions, anticipations, and incomplete neighbors.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.)</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>I find this really interesting, both methodologically and pedagogically.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>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).</div></blockquote><br><div>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.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>If anyone could point me to some other relevant texts, I would be grateful.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div></blockquote><br></div><div>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.)</div><div><br></div><div>***</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>***</div><div><br></div><div>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...</div><div><br></div><div>Olli Väisälä</div><div>Sibelius Academy</div><div><a href="mailto:ovaisala@siba.fi">ovaisala@siba.fi</a></div><br></body></html>