Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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??
- Thread starter AntiCharmQuark
- Start date
Right you are. I got so focused on the B-E-A that I lost sight of the E major.
These rules apply to 18th century counterpoint, which I'm guessing you don't care about. I got real good at them 40 years ago, then realized they had nothing to do with modern music. Some of us are here just to serve as bad examples.
Except the OP was talking about the structure of melody, not functional harmony or chord progressions.
Unless you're doing a degree in composition, and need to write music in certain styles where some melodic movements may be taboo, I'd ignore advice like this, and instead sit down with my bass and transcribe melodies from popular songs, paying careful attention to the harmonic progression and why certain notes in the melody sound the way they do behind the chords. Without context theory is really not much use. I remember being encouraged to learn all the modes as a teenager. It was utterly pointless without the context, i.e what modes can be played behind what chords.
For those of you saying theory is a guideline not a rule, I get that for sure. But like I said I want to learn the rules before I break them, or at least understand the context of he rules, which is what I was getting at with this post.
For those of you saying theory isn't always useful and can be somewhat outdated, I get that too, but I'm a physics PhD by day so I'm super into laws and rules
I think learning theory and why it's around (even if it's not useful anymore) can be useful in its own right, not to mention pretty interesting!
For those of you saying theory isn't always useful and can be somewhat outdated, I get that too, but I'm a physics PhD by day so I'm super into laws and rules
I think learning theory and why it's around (even if it's not useful anymore) can be useful in its own right, not to mention pretty interesting!
The other thing to remember is that it might be mechinically right but not sound right to the ears. Use theory as a backbone and twist the spine when necessary.
Yeah, it depends on why. I'm thinking in the context of a 4 part harmony it may mess up your voice leading but I have not worked it out to check.
I'm always more interested in these kind of discussions then in what color tort TB prefers, but perhaps I also need a serving of carrots? To return to @AntiCharmQuark 's original post: it is an interesting question what intervals sound "right" in what kind of contexts. On the one hand, if your line is too static, it doesn't sound interesting; but, OTOH, if you make too many large jumps, things can sound disconnected. I didn't know that theory rule discussion above, but will play round with it.
For those of you saying theory is a guideline not a rule, I get that for sure. But like I said I want to learn the rules before I break them, or at least understand the context of he rules, which is what I was getting at with this post.
For those of you saying theory isn't always useful and can be somewhat outdated, I get that too, but I'm a physics PhD by day so I'm super into laws and rules
This guy wrote a book called Gradus ad Parnassum
It will answer all your questions
Johann Joseph Fux - Wikipedia
Apologies for going a bit off track, but....
Stacks of (fifths plus minor thirds) gets you up or down two octaves on the neck very quickly:
Example 1 G7 w/ no 3rds
E String: G
A String: D/F (8th notes) I use 1/4 fingering
D String: A/C
G String: E/G
Example 2 A G7 riff up the neck
E String: G
A String: D/E/F (triplet 8ths)
D String: A/B/C
G String: E/F/F# G
Stacks of (fifths plus minor thirds) gets you up or down two octaves on the neck very quickly:
Example 1 G7 w/ no 3rds
E String: G
A String: D/F (8th notes) I use 1/4 fingering
D String: A/C
G String: E/G
Example 2 A G7 riff up the neck
E String: G
A String: D/E/F (triplet 8ths)
D String: A/B/C
G String: E/F/F# G
Moses did not descend from a mountain with rules from God that dictate how music has to be played. Music theory is wisdom gleaned from the experiences of those before you. It suggests that certain things might sound better than others. If you find a context where you think it sounds better the "wrong" way, have at it, and feel free to ignore the theory.
I have things I've figured out that work well for me. But I play different music with different singers and musicians in different places than you probably do. So, listen to what you're playing, not what someone tells you. Unless he's the bandleader who's paying you. Then...listen.
I have things I've figured out that work well for me. But I play different music with different singers and musicians in different places than you probably do. So, listen to what you're playing, not what someone tells you. Unless he's the bandleader who's paying you. Then...listen.
For those of you saying theory is a guideline not a rule, I get that for sure. But like I said I want to learn the rules before I break them, or at least understand the context of he rules, which is what I was getting at with this post.
For those of you saying theory isn't always useful and can be somewhat outdated, I get that too, but I'm a physics PhD by day so I'm super into laws and rules
It's pretty mind blowing when you think about how most of what we call "music theory" was invented and figured out hundreds of years ago, long before anyone knew what a "wave" was or any concept of the physics of waves. Yet, everything we learned about wave physics supports and explains concepts that were originally documented as part of "music theory".
A certain amount of it has to do with the nature of perfect intervals vs imperfect (major/minor) ones.
So, that B-E-A stack of perfect fourths makes for a good brass fanfare sort of thing, but would have such a strong character due to those intervals that it'd sound odd in a lot of uses. (nevermind the irony that the B-E-B upward motion is the same set of intervals in an actual fanfare, Fanfare for the Common Man; anyway, IMO doing roots and 5ths like that would be very Franconian motet-ish)
Let's take another example with an even bigger leap. In E, jump upward from B to E way up to C#. That's the 6th degree in the E Major scale, and a big one in any usage. But because it's a 6th, which is an inversion of the 3rd (I can elaborate if needed), it gives a variant of the same feel as using a 3rd, albeit in a colorful way.
Many of those classic counterpoint rules are based on the Fux school of contrapuntal theory, and while they work fantastically in 2-part imitations all the way to the rare 5-part fugue in Baroque writing, they're essentially based on the idea that human voices are the default instrument (limiting the usefulness of leaps except in the bass part). Instruments that can a) cover wide ranges in total and b) make large leaps with relative ease kind of fall outside of that antiquated theoretical spectrum, and of course, the 20th century turned conventional ideas of melody and harmony on their heads, so while the rules have musical value, just as much value is gained in breaking them.
I forget the name of the "night at the pops" type tune that has a major 9th in its melody, a kinda 40s sounding thing that brass players love doing the interval skip on. It's true, that 9th is followed by a downward 2nd, but still, it'd be supremely unconventional and even iconoclastic to composers of Fux's day.
So, that B-E-A stack of perfect fourths makes for a good brass fanfare sort of thing, but would have such a strong character due to those intervals that it'd sound odd in a lot of uses. (nevermind the irony that the B-E-B upward motion is the same set of intervals in an actual fanfare, Fanfare for the Common Man; anyway, IMO doing roots and 5ths like that would be very Franconian motet-ish)
Let's take another example with an even bigger leap. In E, jump upward from B to E way up to C#. That's the 6th degree in the E Major scale, and a big one in any usage. But because it's a 6th, which is an inversion of the 3rd (I can elaborate if needed), it gives a variant of the same feel as using a 3rd, albeit in a colorful way.
Many of those classic counterpoint rules are based on the Fux school of contrapuntal theory, and while they work fantastically in 2-part imitations all the way to the rare 5-part fugue in Baroque writing, they're essentially based on the idea that human voices are the default instrument (limiting the usefulness of leaps except in the bass part). Instruments that can a) cover wide ranges in total and b) make large leaps with relative ease kind of fall outside of that antiquated theoretical spectrum, and of course, the 20th century turned conventional ideas of melody and harmony on their heads, so while the rules have musical value, just as much value is gained in breaking them.
I forget the name of the "night at the pops" type tune that has a major 9th in its melody, a kinda 40s sounding thing that brass players love doing the interval skip on. It's true, that 9th is followed by a downward 2nd, but still, it'd be supremely unconventional and even iconoclastic to composers of Fux's day.
i keep looking at the passage quoted, and i keep reading 'should be avoided', not 'must be avoided'.
'...the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules'
'...the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules'
Sorry to sling the academic weight here, but I've taught theory in the Univ. of CA system.
What "book" is this? On the surface, it sounds ridiculous. What's the context of these "directives?"
Edit: APOLOGIES to the person(s) who wrote the book, I'm sure it's very useful. I just get all "blowharded but not mad about it"
when I click on these theory threads. So much weird info out there, so many factors involved, so many different contexts. From traditional "classical" theory, to jazz theory, to rock theory, to vernacular conventions (folk, blues, etc.) and then all the places these overlap or do not overlap. Then there's the simple problem of terminology, all over the map. Too easy for newbies to take stuff as gospel truth, when things are often not so.
Last edited:
When studying music theory the phrase, "Should be avoided", needs to have added 'if you want to sound like most composers'. There are no rules, just guidelines to understanding answers to previous problems.
Just listen and decide for yourself which large leaps actually sound good. Keep in mind the context: melodies. Try singing or playing C G D (a leap of two fifths) and decide if you think that sounds good. Then play the full arpeggio of the Cmaj 9 chord: C E G B D (leaps of major and minor thirds). How does that sound?
The mentioned "Over The Rainbow" has octave leaps, which are considered OK. But it doesn't follow any of the leaps with another large leap.
The mentioned "Over The Rainbow" has octave leaps, which are considered OK. But it doesn't follow any of the leaps with another large leap.
Its an old counterpoint rule... lime gregorian chant old. Its aboutnsinging melodies. Actually BEF# would be wrong because after a large leap you're supposed to change direction.
What makes it sound fine (and therefore no longer be wrong) is that music has changed so much and our ears recognize this sound as consonance and not overly angular in 2018.
What makes it sound fine (and therefore no longer be wrong) is that music has changed so much and our ears recognize this sound as consonance and not overly angular in 2018.
