On 4 Feb 2007 at 20:44, Christopher Smith wrote: > On Feb 4, 2007, at 8:11 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: > > > Sorry for OT question, but I can't think of any better place to ask > > this. Kinda embarrassed to ask. Please go easy on me. I did google > > around but couldn't find anything helpful. > > > > I remember, in traditional harmony, you are not supposed to double > > the 3rd, but I don't remember what is the reason for this. The > > sound isn't obvious to my ear as it does with parallel 5th and > > parallel 8th. > > > > And no doubling on the leading note, is another one I am vague > > about its reason. Is this limited to SATB, or the leading note is > > not allowed to be doubled even though the voices are more than 4? > > I'm sure there are theory gods here on the list to help you out, but > it was mostly the MAJOR third that is the last note to be doubled. > This normally means that with four voices, there is only one major > third. Once you get above six or seven voices, then the major third > is more likely to be doubled. The general rule (non-specific) is that > any note with a lot of tension on it should have less doubling than > notes with less tension do. > > Minor thirds could be doubled, at least, more so than major thirds. > In most cases, it is the bass note that gets doubled most of the time > (first inversion being a notable exception) but the needs of voice > leading can cause some rarer note to be doubled gracefully from time > to time. You are correct that the leading tone is very resistant to > being doubled, more so than any other note.
You can't talk about the results of doubling without considering the *bass* of the chord. The traditional doubling rules are different for the different inversions, and there are good pragmatic reasons for the doubling rules -- in four-part traditional harmony, they make for a better sound. Of course, one is absolutely free to intentionally violate the rules for effect, and when voice leading trumps harmony (e.g., in highly polyphonic music), you'll often find them often violated in passing. But the *bass* is what matters, and it shocks me that nobody has mentioned this in answering the question! > Of course, in late Romantic and early 20th C works (as well as jazz!) > these doubling rules go out the window. > > I saw another explanation of this that intrigues me. It stated that > the stable notes of the major scale are the perfect intervals 1, 4 > and 5th degrees, and these notes can sustain more doubling than the > other, less stable, scale notes. In effect this means that the major > triads in a key generally allow the root and 5th doubled, whereas the > minor triads can allow the third doubled. No explanation was given > for minor keys! Again, this makes *no* sense to me, as it treats a key as though its notes are fixed in meaning, as opposed to drawing their meaning from the context in which they are heard. To me, 4 is strongly *unstable*, as it's a downward tendency tone (as the 7 is an upward one). > As to the reason, well, as one of my theory teachers put it, "Nobody > from the period did it. That's the reason we don't either when we are > writing in their style." Fair enough, I guess. (This was in answer to > why I couldn't have parallel fifths when the second fifth was > diminished, which was NOT strictly parallel fifths in my opinion.) No, it's because if you apply the doubling rules in four-part traditional harmony *it sounds better* (smoother, more homogeneous) than if you don't. It's not a matter of arbitrary rules at all. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
