# The "rules" of music?



## BeethoFan

I am seeing more and more people talk about the "rules" of how music is supposed to be structured. Browsing youtube, for example, i'm reading comments about how "parallel 5th's are bad". I am not a music major, and didn't realize that there were rules and restrictions to doing certain things...i just figured it would be suitable enough for a composer to find the right collection of notes, and find the right tempo to play them at to create a great piece of music. It just seems more of a hindrance than a useful guide.

For the people who are music majors, or have studied music in depth, give some examples of such rules during the Baroque and Classical eras. Recommend some compositions that violated these rules, yet still turned out to be masterpieces.


----------



## JAKE WYB

well i can name very many folk inspired pieces which contain parallel 5ths and 4ths and are as masterful as an classical rule defined piece - ie* bartok string quartets *- if you want rules then you should have your own rules - if you dont then then thats the way your art works - music simply has a general need for structural integrity and shape, but thats as free as it would be in a painting - equal phrasing and correct key chamges etc are self imposed rules like the orders of a classical style building - unnecessary

In the classical era im sure there are broken rules in every bach piece - the master of his own rules is one who knows when to break them - unfortuntaley i dont know anything about the matter


----------



## emiellucifuge

You have to realize that these rules change and are gradually forgotten over time.

Today's music hardly pays any attention to these rules. 400 years ago they were the law.

To composers working back then these were not a hindrance but helpful to avoid these sonorities that would sound wrong. In the end all the rules are borne out of practice.


----------



## Kopachris

The rule is "no _salient_ parallel 5ths"--as in, make sure they're not prominent.  Anyway, your whole idea of finding some notes that fit together is sort of what ended the classical era. The whole classical era was about structure, and we saw the culmination of the sonata form, and the minuet form, and a whole bunch of other forms. This whole area of "rules" and general practices is called *music theory*. A good knowledge of music theory, while potentially limiting creativity, makes it much easier to create a whole piece from only a few starting themes and motives.

Take the sonata form, for example. It was developed to structure a piece into an exposition, a development, and a recapitulation. In the exposition, the main themes are exposed. In the development, the main themes are modulated through various keys, put through various permutations, shortened, lengthened, mixed with other themes, and all manner of things designed to "take the listener on a journey". In the recapitulation, we return to the main themes and provide resolution by almost repeating the exposition. The journey is complete.

If you want a composer who liked to bend the rules and sometimes break them, go for Tchaikovsky or Beethoven. Tchaikovsky always hated the sonata form and the typical form of the symphony, but showed that they weren't the only way to go. Beethoven, on the other hand, loved to bend the sonata form to it's limits, often doing so by way of an extra-long development section. He also liked to change up the order of movements in sonatas, and even bent the minuet by making it more wild and fiery, giving us the _scherzo_. Because these sorts of rule-breaking could fit more emotion into music, abandonment of form and rules became more and more popular and gave us the Romantic era.


----------



## Norse

BeethoFan said:


> Browsing youtube, for example, i'm reading comments about how "parallel 5th's are bad".


That's kinda like saying a Picasso painting is "bad" because the perspective is wrong. In this age it would be an extremely conservative view. It all depends on in what context you read it of course. If you're trying to copy Bach's or Mozart's style, not using parallel fifths would be a good idea. I try to stay out of the comment section on classical youtube videos. There are usually some incredibly pompous comments there that just annoy me. 

Rules on music are often generalisations on what has actually been practiced. In the 19th century this could lead to bizarre things like "correcting" a Bach fugue because it wasn't in proper "Bach style". (!) The codification of sonata form is also something that didn't happen until well into the 1800's, when they made generalisations on e.g. what typically happened in the first movements of early and middle Beethoven. This was thought of as a sort of guide to making "good and serious music". "Sonata form" wasn't even a term before that, it was just how things were done, and often with a greater degree of freedom.

When it comes to parallels; fifths, octaves, unisons and sometimes fourths are seen as "bad" in common practice style (I'll leave up to somebody else to define the common practice period time-wise) because of an ideal of "independence of the voices". When voices follow each other like that, they are thought to lose their independence. It can also sound harsh, which I guess is why the "softer" intervals of thirds and sixths are allowed to move in parallels. (That last part is speculation on my part. Plus, I guess it would be very difficult to write triad based music at all if all kinds of parallelism was disallowed.) Parallel octaves are mostly an issue in "strict/learned style" (mainly church music, at least in the classical period). After all, doubling in octaves of either bass or top parts is perfectly common in classical sonatas etc. The term for these kinds of considerations is "voice leading".


----------



## vamos

yes parallel fifths are generally bad when you are learning the basics of music theory. It actually is a very solid rule on those grounds - when writing a simple melodic line. It's hard to explain why, I don't know why, but when you use parallel fifths it makes the music sound like it's stale, going nowhere, and incompetent. That's about it.

Of course they can be utilized in a way that is very interesting. There are many examples of that I'm sure. Ravel, Debussy.

There are other rules as well, though the only ones I know are from college level music theory classes I took. I never got into anything too wild.


----------



## superhorn

Rules are valuable for music students, and are not without their reasons, but it's wrong to be dogmatic about them when evaluating any given work. 
I remember how hard it was to avoid parallel 5th in theory classes in school in the exercises I had to write to learn the basics of music theory.


----------



## Petwhac

There have never actually been 'rules' as such. Just common practice and shared aesthetic preferences.
Bach would avoid parallel 5ths, doubling the major third in a chord, also if his melodic line took a leap of more than a 5th ( say middle C to the A-flat above) the next note would always come back down to a pitch somewhere between the first two. 
It's not that composers weren't _allowed_ to break the rules but more a case of they didn't like the resulting sound of doubled 3rds etc.
Students today are encouraged to write in archaic styles and forms as a good discipline in problem solving and working within strict rules, but these rules were formulated afterwards.

As with any art form, one must _understand_ what ones predecessors were up to and try to gain a mastery of their forms and methods before leaving them behind.

Picasso's cubist and abstract shapes are the result of an artistic choice but he was a fantastic draughtsman and not limited by his inability to paint and draw in a realistic and representational way. He chose not to.

Any composer worth his/her salt should have understood what the great masters of the past were doing and a good way to do it is to put yourself in their shoes and therefore say, for example, I shall harmonise this melody without parallel 5ths etc.


----------



## Argus

Rule #1: Write good music.


----------



## BeethoFan

emiellucifuge said:


> 400 years ago they were the law.


Damn shame. One can only imagine what we've been denied as a result of these "laws". Our favorite old-timers could've turned out some even bigger gems. Oh well.


----------



## Dim7

The "rules" of music are like the "rules" of language - in other words, largely a social construct. Just like the rules of language change according to place, time and even social group, the rules of music also change like that. To appeal to certain social group in a certain time and place it is useful for the composer to know the basic rules or his music might sound like noise. Once he has good command of the rules, he might carefully experiment with them and break some of them for the sake of novelty. But composing with his own rules or without rules at all right from the beginning is risky.


----------



## Rasa

There are no rules. The rules are merely music teachers derivatives of what is the musical common practice of an epoch.

An example of some common practice differences between Baroque and Classical when it comes to harmony.

In baroque, there will be a normal chord on the fourth degree, or otherwise it will be the 7th chord of the 2nd degree on it's third. So in G major, on the C, it will be either CEG or CEGA
In classical, it's more common that a sixt chord is used on the fourth degree. (in G: CEA)
In Baroque, on the fifth degree, there will be a normal chord (in G, DF#A).
In classical, it will alsmost always have a dominant 7th chord (in G: DF#AC). Whereas in baroque, the 7th of this chord might appear, it will mostly only do so as a passage note between the root and the note of the next chord it leads to.

Furthermore, there are some parallel/direct fifths that classical composers would use regularly (at the final cadence, all voices are allowed to descend...). These instances have become the exceptions to "the rules"


----------



## Wicked_one

But nowadays if you wanna compose something, one MUST really obey the rules or just scribble down a lovely melody and write some harmony that sounds good (let's say knowing nothing about these rules) and that's it?


----------



## hocket

*BeethoFan wrote:*



> Damn shame. One can only imagine what we've been denied as a result of these "laws". Our favorite old-timers could've turned out some even bigger gems. Oh well.


No that's presuming too much. They wrote within a certain culture and having rules and limitations can help you to create something -at least you have a starting point. Trying to be wholly original is an almost impossible task and a very daunting starting point. I remember reading a Dali quote recently (on a Classical music blog actually) about people who are unwilling to emulate the past being incapable of creating anything of worth. To say that Bach would've been better without rules is a leap too far -without rules he might not have composed at all! With no tradition of family artisans and received wisdom handed down from master to apprentice he might have become priest instead...

Other than that I agree with those who have asserted that rules are culture bound. I think they can be seen positively as tools but should never be regrded as limitations. You cannot be 'wrong' by breaking the rules -but that doesn't mean they can't be useful. Usually there is a body of learning that has amassed in a given period for a reason.


----------



## Kopachris

BeethoFan said:


> Damn shame. One can only imagine what we've been denied as a result of these "laws". Our favorite old-timers could've turned out some even bigger gems. Oh well.


No. For instance, I doubt Bach would have loved a Romantic composer such as Rachmaninoff, or Mahler, or Sibelius. And neither would the people of the time. That'd be like someone from the 50's listening to today's hip-hop. (However, I'm pretty sure Beethoven would've loved Led Zeppelin  )


----------



## djmomo17

I believe the parallel fifths thing is because when that happens the harmony has redundant elements (ie - wasted notes). In strict counterpoint you won't "hear" the voices moving against each other so well. But as others have said if you use it in a certain situations it sounds fine. Try to fit the parallel fifths concept against Terry Riley's "In C" tho 

Personally I think rules are like opinions. Everyone's got one, and what's invalid for one may be perfectly fine for another. 
The only thing I hate is when avant-garde musicians break rules just for the sake of breaking them. They may get some grant money but if there's no emotional content it will be forgotten...that's why Beethoven will be around forever, and "xxxxx" will be a footnote in 10 years.


----------



## Argus

djmomo17 said:


> I believe the parallel fifths thing is because when that happens the harmony has redundant elements (ie - wasted notes). In strict counterpoint you won't "hear" the voices moving against each other so well. But as others have said if you use it in a certain situations it sounds fine. Try to fit the parallel fifths concept against Terry Riley's "In C" tho
> 
> Personally I think rules are like opinions. Everyone's got one, and what's invalid for one may be perfectly fine for another.
> The only thing I hate is when avant-garde musicians break rules just for the sake of breaking them. They may get some grant money but if there's no emotional content it will be forgotten...that's why Beethoven will be around forever, and "xxxxx" will be a footnote in 10 years.


xxxxx rules. :tiphat:

Serious time:

Who decides whether music has 'emotional content'?


----------



## Aramis

> Who decides whether music has 'emotional content'?


European Union.


----------



## Argus

Aramis said:


> European Union.


The EU also chose Liverpool as the European Capital of Culture in 2008. :tiphat:


----------



## hocket

*Argus wrote:*



> Who decides whether music has 'emotional content'?


Just to clarify, are you asking whether a person or group judges if an individual piece has emotional content or not, or are you questioning whether music in general is 'required' to have 'emotional content'?

I presume the latter, in which case I'd say that it isn't something that is presumed in the artistic establishment anymore. Music is capable of 'doing' lots of diffrerent things, it just so happen that 'emotional content' is by far the most popular.

As to a more serious question:



> The EU also chose Liverpool as the European Capital of Culture in 2008.


Well, that thing's the kiss of death; they only give it to places desperately in need of culture.

No doubt Manchester will soon receive the honour of hosting it.


----------



## Aramis

> Well, that thing's the kiss of death; they only give it to places desperately in need of culture.


Or maybe they consider The Beatles to be culture, that would explain everything, I'm sure Liverpool is their sanctuary.

Btw, these new emots are osom :tiphat:


----------



## Argus

hocket said:


> Just to clarify, are you asking whether a person or group judges if an individual piece has emotional content or not, or are you questioning whether music in general is 'required' to have 'emotional content'?


The former. Although the latter is fundamentally the same question. If music is required to have emotional content, who decides it meets this requirement.



> Well, that thing's the kiss of death; they only give it to places desperately in need of culture.
> 
> No doubt Manchester will soon receive the honour of hosting it.


Sounds about right from a cockney.:tiphat: Everyone knows Linz was where all the culture was coming out of last year.

Just you wait till the Olympics.:trp:



Aramis said:


> Btw, these new emots are osom


I find myself utilising this smarmy bugger in everyone post.:tiphat:

This one's good as well because I don't have a clue what context to use it in.:trp:


----------



## djmomo17

Argus said:


> xxxxx rules. :tiphat:
> 
> Serious time:
> 
> Who decides whether music has 'emotional content'?


I have a book that lists all the pieces which have emotional content. I can send you a copy if you like. 

Seriously, I admit "emotional content" is as subjective as saying whether a concert performance is "spiritual" or "flat". Completely arbitrary.

(Actually spiritual = slow tempo, and flat = timpani/brass was too quiet.)


----------



## hocket

*Argus wrote:*



> Just you wait till the Olympics


Dreading it...still, it's always such a thrill waiting to find out which country has the most advanced steroid programme.


----------



## Ravellian

djmomo17 said:


> The only thing I hate is when avant-garde musicians break rules just for the sake of breaking them. They may get some grant money but if there's no emotional content it will be forgotten...that's why Beethoven will be around forever, and "xxxxx" will be a footnote in 10 years.


Eh? If there's no emotional content their music will be forgotten? Try telling that to J.S. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, or any of the early symphonists.


----------



## djmomo17

Ravellian said:


> Eh? If there's no emotional content their music will be forgotten? Try telling that to J.S. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, or any of the early symphonists.


Are you saying the early classicists have no emotional content? They may not have "programmatic content" but you can't say Bach's St Matthew's Passion has no emotional content, can you? Wait, that's not the best example of non-programmatic but you know what I mean.

I'm referring more specifically to the music of the 12-tone/serialism school, like Boulez's early piano sonatas. Of course it's all subjective....


----------



## Kopachris

Ravellian said:


> Eh? If there's no emotional content their music will be forgotten? Try telling that to J.S. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, or any of the early symphonists.


I agree with djmomo. If you can describe music with emotional adjectives such as "dark", "light", "bouncy", "stately", etc., then it has emotional content. Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor: very dark, evocative of, well, Frankenstein*. Haydn's Symphony No. 60: very stately, evocative of the courts of Victorian England**. Mozart's Horn Concerto No. 4, Movement 3: very light and bouncy and friendly, evocative of a sea-side shantytown**. It's true that as the Romantic period came to be, individual themes began to hold more emotional content on their own, and so development through repetition was no longer as effective, but surely you can't say that Baroque and Classical music holds _no_ emotional content? Even absolute music holds emotional content and evokes something in the mind of the listener, though the composer doesn't try to evoke anything in particular; it's part of the nature of music.

*Probably due to it's use in the "mad scientist" scene in various movies
**At least in my mind, probably evocative of something different (but similar) in your's


----------



## Ravellian

No, I definitely wasn't saying that all baroque and classical music has no emotional content. *sigh* 

I should have been more specific. Specific well-known masterpieces by Bach, especially the _Well Tempered Clavier_, _Goldberg Variations_, and _Art of Fugue_ have little to no emotional content. As a whole the Baroque era has a great deal of emotional content in their works, much more than the early classical period (especially the 'galant' style).

In general, Haydn is very unemotional in his works. His symphonies are all characteristic of the early-to-mid classical style: logical, rational, lack of chromaticisms, very regular periodic phrasing, and full of musical _wit_ and _humor_. Mozart is more prone to emotionalism in his music, but still, a great deal of his symphonies and piano sonatas are in the typical unsympathetic classical style.

Other composers I'd identify as having a lack of emotion in their works would be Erik Satie (that first Gymnopedie being an exception), Schoenberg, Ives, and many other modern composers.


----------

