Quote:
|
In tonal harmony, for example, voices are not supposed to move in parallel fourths. Of course, sometimes this rule is broken, often succesfully, but in general it really does hold value - there is something displeasing about about parallel fourths, and they are often detrimental to the aesthetic value of a composition. Now if aesthetic pleasure really does derive entirely from Truth, there must be something "unTrue" about such a composition. So I ask: how do parallel fourths violate Truth? How can an abstract object like that violate Truth?
|
The only compositions in which parallel fourths sounds "displeasing" are those written in the functional harmonic style of the 17th through 19th centuries. In fact, while these works were being written there was no such "rule." There was a style of composition, just as there are always fashions in art. At the time a composition using parallel fourths would probably have been judged "bad," but so would a composition that broke from the prevailing style in any other significant way. (Which is why we are able to look at the style now and pick out its characteristics--if anything and everything could be good art in a particular time and place, it would be very difficult for a prevailing style to develop.) What such a composition would not have been is "unTrue--" it's always just as possible to reveal something badly as it is to do it well.
What I'm trying to say, in my long-winded way, is that this "rule" about avoiding parallel intervals is a modern construct, placed on a particular style of art from the past. It's a style characteristic, not a decree from on high. The only way to violate it is to write a composition that adheres to the style in every other way, and also uses parallel fourths, which would stick out like a sore thumb in that context. The "rule" would be violated, but the work wouldn't somehow lose its relatipnship with the truth. Not even the historical truth of the style would be violated--the context of the rest of the composition would speak loudly enough, and the parallel fourths would sound out of place, just as they should in such a work.
Which, I suppose, boils down to a restatement of what I was trying to say before--the craftsmanship (or, if you like, the degree of its adherence to a particular style) of a work has nothing to do with its ability to show us something about our experience.
Reading this, it occurs to me--am I sidling up to a position that what makes good art is the degree to which it fits into a prevailing style? I certainly hope not! I'll have to think about that.