What people get wrong about rules of counterpoint is that they actually treat them like rules. They aren't.
Bach wrote in parallel fifths when it was convenient for him. The reason he didn't usually use them was because they don't give the sound of Bach. In other words, the rules of species counterpoint and CPP writing is descriptive, not prescriptive.
For those of you who have a strong Classical background and who are equally well interested in Jazz: how do you switch between the two?Suppose we talk of some basic "Chord-Melody" setting in both Classical and Jazz. First of all, I understand that some terms such as Chord-Melody are inappropriate in the context of strict Classical music terminology as well as some terms will have no particular meaning in the context of Jazz.What I want to ask you for the purpose of this discussion is to temporarily abandon the strict terminology and focus on the essence of the matter.Back to the subject. Suppose you have a complete melody (It could be 'I hear a Rhapsody', for instance) and you want to make a simple piano arrangement with mostly block chords ("chorale texture") with some figuration sprinkled in here and there in the upper voice and maybe some rhythmic devices in the lower part for the sake of variety.In Jazz: You are free to do anything as long as you like the result. If someone doesn't like _your_ result - it's their own problem (and possibly yours if no one wants to listen to your arrangement :-)).In Classical: When doing an arrangement of the same 'I hear a Rhapsody' according to the Common Practice Period (CPP) rules you are bound to follow a number of restrictions and practices that can limit your choice of harmonies and figuration/rhythmic techniques substantially. I don't suggest that's something bad: that's paying your price for adhering to the CPP style rules.Some of the limits you'll have: preparation of dissonances (almost all 7th will have to be prepared) with their subsequent strict resolution; practically no presence of the upper extensions (everything above the 7th is out of style); A really important one: restriction on the "inversions" you can use (I assume you may not follow the theory of inversions once conceived by J.P.Rameau; J.S.Bach knew nothing about inversions: he simply knew how to stack intervals above the Root note to make a particular harmony), so you can't place the 5th of a chord in the bass like you would do that in Jazz unless it's a special occasion - not as a rule. Of course you'll be restricted on the use of parallels: no parallel 5ths and octaves.The major problem that I see is once you immerse yourself into the CPP style rules and learn to appreciate the would-be stupidly restrictive rules (some of which I listed above) there is hardly a way back to the "ignorance" associated with the Jazz culture.For instance, you begin to hear how ugly the Maj7 chord is: the interval of min 2nd makes it like that.Another example is the 2nd inversion triad which is readily available in Jazz (though not many would use triads in Jazz) but as I mentioned above is rarely used in CPP style: the 4th above the Root is considered unstable and dissonant and thus not usable as a rule.I like both Classical and Jazz but I have hard time to reconcile the two approaches: once I set on one of them the other goes out the window.Please share your thoughts on all this. How do you approach this dilemma if you are like me?The main problem is not the theory but what you do with your ears: how do you set-up your mind set to accept audible Jazz liberties when you know and HEAR that they are considered ugly in the CPP setting? I find it like falling between two stools...
I can't agree with you. If you open any treatise on composition/music theory of the CPP period you'll see clearly stated warnings against using parallels. Thus the rules were prescriptive. There were some exceptions from the rules like the 'horn 5ths' but they were in minority. CPP composers avoided parallel 5th/8ths for a few reasons:- they mislead the ear in terms of the current tonal center thus creating ambiguity- they create an empty sound, in other words they drop one voice in the polyphonic texture- a few more I can't remember clearly but the two above were enough for the composers to avoid them
I'd say he used them when he couldn't avoid them or otherwise used them for special effects. It's not that he considered them the valid choice in any given situation.
...The treatises are best observed as composers passing on what worked for them to the next generation of composers; the avoidance of the tri-tone in choral music being one of these examples (the commonly cited thing about the Catholic Church banning the tri-tone is false).The important thing to know is that music did not stem from treatises. Rules did not make music, music made rules....