• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

THEORY QUESTION: Double leaps larger than a major 3rd??

AntiCharmQuark

AntiCharmQuark

Guest
Jun 9, 2016
22
18
29
#1
Hey everyone!
So I'm reading through a theory book right now (the free one many people were posting here awhile back), and in the section on melodic movement, it says this:
"Double leaps implying larger intervals than the major 3rd should be avoided, except when the last note is an octave away from the first note.

For example, in E Major, (B-E-B) would be accepted, but (B-E-A) would not"

Now I know that these are guidelines and not strict rules, but that movement of B-E-A goes from a minor 3rd to a perfect fourth, and it sounds okay to me? Maybe not very resolved, but as a part of a larger melody it seems like B-E-A would be okay. What do they mean by this, any enlightenment?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
#2
If it sounds good, it is good. Theory is like a roadmap, many roads to get to where you want to go, the map just shows possibilities, can't tell you what your destination or route is though. (There are lots of wonderful melodies with big leaps (or even defined by them) - was just thinking of "Somewhere Over The Rainbow", for example.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: jfh2112, Matthew_84, redstrand and 4 others
#3
bholder said:
If it sounds good, it is good. Theory is like a roadmap, many roads to get to where you want to go, the map just shows possibilities, can't tell you what your destination or route is though. (There are lots of wonderful melodies with big leaps (or even defined by them) - was just thinking of "Somewhere Over The Rainbow", for example.)
Click to expand...

I definitely get that, I'm just trying to see what they're implying here. I don't understand WHY it's a rule, yaknow? I mean a fourth isn't that big of an interval... I think earlie rin the book they even say something like "no larger than a minor sixth" then they go and say a fourth is too big? Is it because B-A is a minor seventh?

I just want to understand the rules before I start breaking them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lobster11, Bioflava and InhumanResource
#4
There's probably a "continuity" point involved, sure. No idea what nuances make a 4th "big" in one scenario while a minor sixth is ok in the other. Hmmmmmmm.
 
#8
I just got home and picked up a guitar and I think I get it now- an interval of more than a Major third is okay on its own, (i.e., B-E is fine) but not when followed up by another interval of larger than a major third. So B-E-A is a somewhat unsatisfying, unresolved melody, but B-E-F# or B-E-G# is fine, is that how y'all would understand it? I feel a bit silly posting this now after figuring out shortly after, but sometimes all it takes to answer your question is to ask it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bioflava, HolmeBass and bholder
#10
AntiCharmQuark said:
I just got home and picked up a guitar and I think I get it now- an interval of more than a Major third is okay on its own, (i.e., B-E is fine) but not when followed up by another interval of larger than a major third. So B-E-A is a somewhat unsatisfying, unresolved melody, but B-E-F# or B-E-G# is fine, is that how y'all would understand it? I feel a bit silly posting this now after figuring out shortly after, but sometimes all it takes to answer your question is to ask it!
Click to expand...
Ahh, two big intervals in a row being too much of a "stretch" melodically? Yeah, I think I can buy that as a rule of thumb. I'm certain there exist some recognizable exceptions, but I don't have any leaping into my head, it's more often a big leap preceded / followed by smaller steps. Harder to sing otherwise...
 
  • Like
Reactions: dab12ax7ef, Watchootognbout and AntiCharmQuark
#11
AntiCharmQuark said:
I just got home and picked up a guitar and I think I get it now- an interval of more than a Major third is okay on its own, (i.e., B-E is fine) but not when followed up by another interval of larger than a major third. So B-E-A is a somewhat unsatisfying, unresolved melody, but B-E-F# or B-E-G# is fine, is that how y'all would understand it? I feel a bit silly posting this now after figuring out shortly after, but sometimes all it takes to answer your question is to ask it!
Click to expand...
Not to throw a wrench in your learning,but look up "non functioning harmony"
How do you write successive, non-functional chord progressions?
 
#12
Starting at the fifth fret play A E B, nothing wrong with that. Try moving it up/down the neck, nothing wrong with that.

Did you know that 4/5ths of a quart is a fifth of a gallon? ...A pint of trivia.
 
#15
Watchootognbout said:
Remember this!
It's called Music "Theory"
Click to expand...


theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural the·o·ries.
  1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:Einstein's theory of relativity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVE, AntiCharmQuark and Febs
#16
popcat said:
Starting at the fifth fret play A E B, nothing wrong with that. Try moving it up/down the neck, nothing wrong with that.
P
Did you know that 4/5ths of a quart is a fifth of a gallon? ...A pint of trivia.
Click to expand...
Some of us cried when whiskey no longer came in quarts but fifths, then to confuse us further the bottles were labeled 3/4 litres.
If it's sounds good, make a note on that page, "I'm confused!"
 
#17
When you walk into a room where conversations have been going on for some time already you can spend a long time trying to figure out what's going on. In one group you can cuss up a storm but in another you need to be circumspect. Another may be highbrow while the next one is pun city. Getting oriented takes a while. Music theory is kind of like that.

Music theory isn't a set of rules that was built to tell you how to make music, it's a set of rules derived from what people were doing in their music then used for explaining it. Music first, theory follows. e.g. One troubador did stuff that people liked and gathered around to hear and another was more clever with what he did but drew smaller audiences. Music theory was the pursuit to find the patterns, to figure out why it was thus. Once the "why" was established and understood the pedagogues took over, dictating how it "should," "must" or "had to" be done.

Knowing the rules well gives you the tools for making the best use of them. That includes bending, breaking and diverging from them in your music. A lot of instrumental music still relies upon patterns that derived from ye olde vocal music. Intervals greater than a third are challenging for singers so we don't use them much without intervening smaller intervals. We are trained, culturally, to apply that to instrumental music as well. Not because the intervals are difficult on instruments (they frequently aren't) but because our ears are so accustomed to smaller leaps. That last point is, in a nutshell, what your textbook is telling you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matthew_84, lermgalieu, Bioflava and 1 other person
#18
Pacman said:
theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural the·o·ries.
  1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:Einstein's theory of relativity.
Click to expand...
Even among theorist there are disagreements.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back