Parallelism

Subject: Parallelism
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 11:20 PM

I'm trying to extricate myself from the parallelic curse of guitar-based songwriting and it is not an easy battle. I'm a paralleling sonofabitch. One reason for my failure to play bossa nova in true bossa nova format is that I parallel too much. Bossa nova has virtually no parallels in it. When two consecutive chords are played, often the hand doesn't even move—just the fingers and they move as little as possible. The two chords share as many notes as possible. By share, I mean the shared notes are played in the same spot they were on the previous chord instead of moving the hand several frets higher or lower and hitting a totally new chord. The latter case is parallelism and while it may be the same notes but they are now played in a different spot on different strings and often in different octaves.

Parallelism is VERY prevalent in modern music—particularly rock and folk. It's not wrong to parallel but it's a bad habit to fall into on a constant basis and I definitely have this terrible habit—I parallel the shit out of stuff. Part of the reason is that I'm a self-taught, not terribly proficient guitar-player. Paralleling is a poor man's way of resolving or changing chords. It's not all that musical sounding but we are so bombarded by it that we don't notice it. That's why to North American ears, bossa nova sounds so pretty but if you try paralleling the chords, that beauty is destroyed. The problem is, it takes more skill to resolve or change chords in more musically satisfactory ways. They sound nicer and far more musical but require some knowledge of how to use and form chords. Paul Simon and James Taylor songs sound so nice because any parallels are kept to a minimum and hence the guitar lines sound very melodic and harmonious…and they are not the easiest to play.

The ii-V change is: D minor, G major, C minor, F major, Bb minor, Eb major, Ab minor, Db major, F# minor, B major, E minor, A major, Eb minor, Ab major, C# minor, F# major, B minor, E major, A minor, D major, G minor, C major, F minor, Bb major, Eb. Of course, you can make them 7ths if you wish.

Let's apply root-5th folk bass (although it is used in jazz, blues, rock, etc.) to the ii-V. D minor would be played open D and then A played a fifth up (on the G-string). Then we'd drop to the low G (3rd fret of low E-string) then play the open D. This, though, is paralleling. It is not a terribly musical sequence. Imagine somebody singing that way. The bassist would do well to avoid this in most instances. What he'd be better off playing is open D, a fifth up to A and hit that same string open for a better G and then drop down to the "lower 5th" and hit the open D again. This is well known among jazz bassists and you'll never see a good one moving his hand up and down the fingerboard just to play a walk. A good bassist knows where the good notes are and knows they will be close to one another and that the hand won't have to move that much. Sure, he might loon up the neck a bit so as not to sound too monotonous but it should not be a constant thing. His hand should remain mainly in half position and stray into the 1st position a bit and that should comprise the bulk of his walk. And he should be playing open notes whenever possible.

But how to break out of it on the guitar. That's the problem.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: GUEST,Klumper
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 11:29 PM

do what ??? come again ?????

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 02:40 AM

Hey, you learn something every day.

I tend to play my chords around one position rather than shooting up and down the neck. The main reason is that, if I am concentrating on singing the words, there is a good chance that I'll miss the chord – the fingers are in the right shape but I may be a fret too low, etc. Even if I make the chord, the worry of not making it can make me panic. I've always seen playing in one position as one of my limitations but now I can count it as one of my skills.

Bossa Nova is one of my favourite rhythms to play but I didn't realise that there was a technical reason for it.

DC

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 08:06 PM

Somebody needs to make a chord bible that shows how to resolve various chords in the most musical manner possible.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 09:15 PM

////always seen playing in one position as one of my limitations but now I can count it as one of my skills.////

Well, it can also be a limitation if you rely on it in lieu of paralleling because you can't parallel. Paralleling has its uses. I want to make clear it is NOT wrong to parallel. Sometimes a chord change sounds better that way. Expressing tension or suspense or anger would be good calls for paralleling. It's just that we tend to parallel out of habit when chords could resolve in so much sweeter and musical a fashion.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 02:22 AM

////always seen playing in one position as one of my limitations but now I can count it as one of my skills.////

Well, it can also be a limitation if you rely on it in lieu of paralleling because you can't parallel.


Oh bugger! Well, it was nice while it lasted.


DC

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Tootler
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 04:09 PM

What exactly do you mean by paralleling in this context.

I am not a guitarist but I do write harmonies the main use of the term "parallel" I have come across is parallel fifths where two harmony parts move together a fifth apart. This is considered bad practice by some, but in some musical styles can be quite effective.

Parallel thirds are generally considered OK but you don't want too much of it or it becomes monotonous.

Although I am not a guitarist, I have recently started playing ukulele and like Doug Chadwick, I tend to stick to first position as I am using it as song accompaniment and my focus is more on the song, so I need easy movement between chords.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 05:09 PM

An A's an A's an A: Not so.

Guitar players I think tend to work in chord positions and what will provide good-sounding back-up for songs. Pianists who also play a harmonic instrument seem to work in inversions. The difficulty occurs because guitars generally have six strings, and thus six notes available for each chord. The piano has ten notes available. Think of the differences in sound between the B7 done on the first and second frets and the 'same' chord done in the A position on the 2, 4 and 5 frets. They are the same chord but they don't sound the same. Maybe some of what you're calling parallelism is attributable to that sort of thing.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Will Fly
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 06:06 PM

If I'm playing an instrumental tune as a solo guitar piece, then my immediate task is to merge the melody line with accompanying chords. The first task for me is usually to pick a key which covers the melodic range of the tune in a comfortable manner - or even an uncomfortable manner if I'm feeling adventurous. The next task is fit the chords to the tune and adjust my fingering and voicing so that the chords underpin the tune. That's just the basics but - even at this stage - this dictates where my fingers go on the fretboard.

As Bruce says, there are only 6 strings on the guitar - but multiple choices for string selection - so it's not a question, for me, of being 'parallel' or anything else. It's what my ears tell me is right and what my hands can actually manage on the day. As for needing "to make a chord bible that shows how to resolve various chords in the most musical manner possible," - well, "most musical" is always a matter of personal taste and you can't legislate for it.

Obviously if I'm accompanying my voice or, more likely, someone else, then all that goes out of the window. My task is to make the guitar blend and/or contrast with the other voice or instrument, and the chording, bass lines, fills, etc., will be there to do just that - horses for courses. When I'm playing accompanying guitar for Alan (on Anglo concertina), we'll probably play through something many, many times until the picture becomes clear - but none of it is subordinate to any theory, it's just what's required for the occasion.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 03 Feb 12 - 11:25 PM

////As Bruce says, there are only 6 strings on the guitar - but multiple choices for string selection - so it's not a question, for me, of being 'parallel' or anything else. It's what my ears tell me is right and what my hands can actually manage on the day.////

That was never my point. My point is that many and even most guitar-players don't know of any other way to change or resolve chords except by paralleling (I'm one of them). I never said you should never parallel. Haven't I made this clear or is there something about my statement that it is NOT wrong to parallel that's just not sinking in?

////As for needing "to make a chord bible that shows how to resolve various chords in the most musical manner possible," - well, "most musical" is always a matter of personal taste and you can't legislate for it.////

Again, that was NEVER my point. My point is that many if not most guitar-players (at least in North America) are unaware that they have more musical ways to resolve or change chords than by paralleling. Those guitarists that know this are also known for their beautiful guitar work and I mentioned two of them--Paul Simon and James Taylor I never said you had to play a more musical way but I am saying you should be aware of your choices rather than playing it that way because that's the only way you know.

////Obviously if I'm accompanying my voice or, more likely, someone else, then all that goes out of the window////

All that better not go out the window. If you know what your options are, you'd better damned well weigh them. You don't just play something at random and you don't just take the easiest route for the hell of it.

If you want to play the same old boxy chords that I do, then you're really no better than I am. If you know more than me, you should demonstrate it by playing something I can only dream of. That's what separates the men from the boys.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: BlueJay
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 12:22 AM

josepp, could you please define "parallel" and "paralleling"? I do not know what the term means, yet you encourage me to avoid it. You obviously have a lot of musical knowledge, e.g. what you wrote about the ii-V changes. A lot to explore, and I thank you. I may be simply ignorant, but I do not know your terms, and I would like to understand exactly what you are talking about. Thanks, BlueJay

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 04:27 AM

If you know more than me, you should demonstrate it by playing something I can only dream of.

Watch the vids. I think Will's already done that.


DC

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Will Fly
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 04:43 AM

All that better not go out the window. If you know what your options are, you'd better damned well weigh them. You don't just play something at random and you don't just take the easiest route for the hell of it. If you want to play the same old boxy chords that I do, then you're really no better than I am. If you know more than me, you should demonstrate it by playing something I can only dream of. That's what separates the men from the boys.

You really don't get the point I'm making, do you? One takes different approaches to playing depending on the circumstances of the music. So, my approach to creating a tune for myself can be whatever I want it to be, and the beauty or otherwise will be in my ears and the ears of those to whom I play it. When I'm accompanying someone else, or playing in a band, my individual playing is subordinated to the sound of the whole - and that might require an entirely different approach.

I have no idea what you mean by "the same old boxy chords" - it's a meaningless phrase in the context of what I'm saying. As for the "you're really no better than I am" schtick, I'll resist the temptation to enter a "mine is bigger than yours" contest (and I have seen your playing on YouTube). I can only demonstrate the point I'm making by giving you an example of where I'm putting a piece together and, in some parts, ignoring conventional chord shapes to get a melody line playing against a descending bass line. The need to get these two lines together ignores any theoretical stuff about "parallelism" or any other "ism"...

42nd Street

Finally, Josepp, why be so aggressive? It's surely possible to have a civilised disagreement without waving one's musical willie around?

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 05:57 AM

Nice one, Will.

####################################

Try Wikipedia and look up parallel harmony

In music, parallel harmony, also known as harmonic parallelism, harmonic planing or parallel voice leading, is the parallel movement of two or more lines (see voice leading). Examples may be found in Claude Debussy's "Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune" (1894), Maurice Ravel's Daphnis and Chloë Suite No. 2 (1913), Richard Strauss's Elektra (1909), Arnold Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire, "Columbine" (1914), and William Schuman's Three Score Set for Piano (1944). In the last example the inversions of the chords suggest a bichordal effect.[2]

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Tootler
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 03:47 PM

Josepp, you still haven't answered the question I asked and which was also asked by Blue Jay.

What do you mean by parallelism and paralleling.

If you read the thread properly you will find two people have posted something on parallel harmony. Is that what you mean or is it something else?

Please have the courtesy to respond. After all there is no point to a discussion in which the key term is not defined.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 05:47 PM

Does he just mean playing chords in different positions on the fret ?
HI doug good to see you today ..

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Feb 12 - 09:49 PM

I'm familiar with what is said in the citation from Wikipedia posted above because of the music theory classes I have taken. Parallel fourths, fifths, and octaves are verboten in writing four-part harmony exercises, until you get into more advanced classes. The idea is "learn the rules first, so when you break them, you know why you are doing it."

I don't know what Josepp means by the term "parallelism."

I've studied classic guitar and play a batch of classical pieces, along with working out my own song accompaniments. Not often like Richard Dyer-Bennet's accompaniments, although I can if I want to. I use a lot of standard guitar chords along with right-hand folk techniques, and have no problem with strings of parallel fifths and such—unless I do it for a particular effect.

Josepp, can you explain more clearly what you mean?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 02:51 AM

Hi Tim.

Does he just mean playing chords in different positions on the fret ?

Yes, I think so. That is the way I interpreted it.

If chord progressions are achieved by using barre chords up and down the fret board, with only a limited number of chord shapes, then the result may technically meet the requirements of the tune but could sound a bit boring. It could also tend to limit the chords used to the more obvious major, minor and 7th rather than more subtle augmented, diminished, minor 6th, etc. I think that this is what is meant by "boxy".

I don't think it has anything to do with parallel harmony. Correct me if I am wrong, Josepp.


DC

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 03:30 AM

Time to put my hand up and say that I'm not sure either of what - or rather which - specific thing is meant by "parallel" in this case, which he has used as a noun, a verb and an adjective. I went through conservatory so am well familiar with music theory, and am able to make logical guesses. So I know what I mean when I use the term. But not, exactly, what Josepp means. Playing in octaves? Using enharmonics to build chords?? My best guess would be playing a unison on two different strings simultaneously (something that harpists do all the time, ditto bowed strings). But that's only speculation.

OK, Josepp, you have all our attentions. Now spill.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Darowyn
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 04:53 AM

I'm guessing that the prime example of parallelism would be the way that the Metal guys at College used to play, with the guitar tuned to drop D. They would put one finger across the two lowest strings, and another two frets higher on the D and keep that shape throughout. They rarely knew the name of the chord or the key they were playing in, and a riff would be notated on a scrap of paper as 3,3,1,3,6,6,6,5,4. (the 666 bit was vital!)
That indicated which fret each bare fifth- which they called a 'power chord' was played. The bass player would play the same pattern on the A string.
When it comes to Bossa Nova, it has always seemed to me that it is the Major Sevenths and multiple suspensions that most characterise the guitar style.
Personally, when confronted by the complex chording of a Jazzy piece, I first check the recorded version as a reference. Transcribers have a naughty habit of transcribing the harmonic content of the whole band onto the 'guitar chords'.
I often find that something like an E flat major seventh plus a flatted fifth and a minor ninth actually represents a moment when the guitar plays EbM7 while the bass is walking in semitones from the fourth to the fifth while the piano player plays a trill on the ninth.
As a player of Mandolin and steel guitar as well as six string, the conventional chordbox reflexes have been overtaken long ago. Accordingly, I use a lot of partial and unconventional chord shapes when chords are changing very rapidly. An example the other day was in a fairly fast song, the score asks for a G, followed by a Cadd9 and an Em, in a quaver timing. I play a four-string G chord on the third fret, then just d and g single notes together on the third fret, then open Em.
That contains the all the notes you need to hear, gives the correct counter melody run on the B string and is playable.
I also have to admit that I spent hours last week strugging to play a lick in seventh position and getting very frustrated with my fumbling fingers, before I realised that it was an absolute piece of cake to play in third and open.
Silly old game, this music , isn't it?
Cheers
Dave

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Will Fly
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 05:27 AM

When wanting to play a 'standard' from the '20s, '30s and '40s - or even, very occasionally, '50s - I invariably try and get back to the original sheet music as far as possible. No matter how well I know a tune, or think I do, it's often very instructive to get back to the dots (and, of course, I have to trust to them being reasonably accurate) because the music can give me insights into the actual harmonic development underpinning the tune which I might not have thought about.

It's impossible to transcribe piano music completely on to guitar, but you can look at the way the piece has been shaped and then make decisions about which parts of it, when played on guitar, are going to retain the spirit and character of the original. This is the important bit - and the point that I was making (or trying to) in my original post. Playing structured, practical exercises in a particular theoretical, musical framework is one thing, and you can go through as many 'isms' as you like. Putting a tune together and breathing life into it so that it has some colour is a much more organic and creative process. All the rules can be broken to achieve your goal - and whether you succeed or not will be for you and your listeners to find out.

So when Josepp says many if not most guitar-players (at least in North America) are unaware that they have more musical ways to resolve or change chords than by paralleling, I'm staggered by such a sweeping statement which has nothing to back it up and appears to create a problem which may not actually exist. I know the music of many, many wonderful guitar players in North America, and I've learned much from all of it.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: doc.tom
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 06:13 AM

And the difference between a rock guitarist and a jazz guitarist? The rocker plays 3 chords at 3000 people...

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 02:52 PM

Yeah, barre chords using the same chord shape and simply schlepping it up and down the neck would be parallel everything.

Lazy. Lousy. Unmusical. Unimaginative.

As long as one sings the song reasonably well, simple first position chords with a "Burl Ives basic" picking or strumming pattern makes for a better accompaniment than making the left hand operate like a frantic elevator up and down the fingerboard. And musically it's much better.

Once you get that down, try throwing in a few bass runs. Then work in a bit of a harmony line. Build the accompaniment.

Don't fall for fads, no matter how flashy they might look.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: matt milton
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 03:12 PM

I too don't quite understand what the OP means by "paralleling".

In the original post, it seems he either means: different inversions of the same chord, up or down the neck; or he means different, straightforward chords up or down the neck. I think what he means by 'paralleling' is, say, moving the same barre chord shape up and down: moving your hand.

I don't quite recognise that picture of bossa nova though. For one thing, the thumb often plays a rhythmic bass note in between those finger-plucked chords he desribes.

For another, guitarists such as Baden Powell hop all over the place when they play bossa, playing all sorts of inversions and rhythms. You can bet he's moving his left hand a fair old bit! Even Joao Gilberto's playing is deceptively simple. While bossa has a lot less left-hand movement than flamenco, it hasn't any less hand movement than, say, traditional american or british folk guitar styles.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 05 Feb 12 - 07:16 PM

It means ' talking out of your arse '

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: GUEST,John Foxen
Date: 06 Feb 12 - 03:03 PM

I suggest Josepp seeks out some tracks by the late Ted Greene who does things most of us can only dream of then sits down with his book Modern Chord Progressions.
In fact, anyone interested in the guitar can benefit from that grat teacher and player.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 02:07 AM

I took it that Josepp was, as Don Firth and Doug Chadwick hinted, and Matt Milton spelled out, "moving the same barre chord shape up and down"-the term he used is an accurate description of what he was doing, but it isn't commonly used or understood-- don't get upset if we didn't get it--everyone is just trying to help!

If this is the case, a lot of rock guitarists do it because they like the sound, but most of them, and us, started out playing these "open" position chords(using at least one open string)-

E: 0-2-2-1-0-0
A: 0-0-2-2-2-0
D: X-0-0-2-3-2

G: 2-3-0-0-0-3
C: X-3-2-0-1-0
F: X-X-3-2-1-1

and, oh, yeah:

B7: X-2-1-2-0-1-0
C7: X-3-2-2-0-1-0
and some related minor and other 7th fingerings.

and knowing, if nothing else, that the Chord tone and the fifth are in different places for each chord.

Using these fingerings allows us to play all or most of the chords in a given key with minimal change in fret position, and lets us follow the rules mentioned by Don about movement in four part harmony(and avoiding the parallel movements) without even knowing that we are doing it!

And you can take those open chord fingering up the neck as barre chords, and use the inversions to play in two different keys on each fret!(three, if you stretch a bit)

Here are chords for A major, D major, and E major using fifth position( the fifth fret)

Key of A (A,D, and E7 chords)

A:5-7-7-6-5-5

D: 5-5-7-7-7-5

E7: X-7-6-7-5-X

Key of D (D,G, A7)

D: 5-5-7-7-7-5

G: 7-5-5-7-8-7

A7:5-7-5-6-5-5

Key of E (E, A, B7)

E:7-7-6-4-X-X

A:X-7-7-6-5-5

B7: 7-X-7-6-X-X


And, yes, I know, the G with the B on the bottom is a bit different(it is the D fingering with a Bass note added), and the E arguably has parallels in it, and I should have used 7-X-6-4-5-4, but most acoustic players hate playing that chord fingering((Ted Greene liked it, but he played a tele):-)

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: Tootler
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 04:53 PM

I notice josepp is still prominent by his absence.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: GUEST,Klumper
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 05:24 PM

Perhaps it means playing a quantum reality guitar duet with yourself
with each hand in a different parallel dimensional Universe ?

Otherwise still aint got an effin clue what Jozzer was on about !!!???

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Feb 12 - 05:33 PM

: Parallelism, ah reminscent of walkabouts verse

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 10:20 PM

////could you please define "parallel" and "paralleling"? I do not know what the term means,////

There are various ways of paralleling. Guitarists tend to play a series of chords that have the same hand shape and fingering up and down the neck. It usually betrays an inability to find a more musical solution. Like anything else in music, paralleling has its uses but has become a bad habit in modern guitar-playing.

Folk bass that uses root-fifth is paralleling. Why? Because it's root-fith, root-fifth, root-fifth. You can move up and down the fingerboard but if all you're playing over and over again is root-fifth, that's paralleling. It's not wrong to do unless you're doing it all the time. It became problematic a tetrachord 7th such as an Eb minor 7th. You can't play Eb on the open E-string obviously since that it is lowest note on the bass (we're not counting 5-stringers or neck extensions). So you have to play Eb on the D-string but your 7th ends up at Db on the G-string. That's ok to play on occasion but certainly not every time you play it. So you invert the Eb minor 7th chord by playing the Eb on the D-string but then playing the Gb on the E-string, the Bb on the A string and then the Db on the A-string. That sounds much better if you're coupling it with, say, an Ab major 7th. If you play it parallel with the way the Ab major 7th is played, you're going to climb the neck everytime you play the Eb minor 7th. Inverting it is non-parallel and far more musically aesthetic.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 10:27 PM

////I'm guessing that the prime example of parallelism would be the way that the Metal guys at College used to play, with the guitar tuned to drop D. They would put one finger across the two lowest strings, and another two frets higher on the D and keep that shape throughout. They rarely knew the name of the chord or the key they were playing in, and a riff would be notated on a scrap of paper as 3,3,1,3,6,6,6,5,4////

Yes, that's the idea. Metal ODs on parallelism. Every chord is played the same way, same shape, moving up and down the neck

And, yes, if very often indicates limited musical knowledge and ability. And I'm not being haughty, I speak from firsthand experience.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 10:39 PM

Hello, josepp. Thanks for the explanation. How you doing?

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 11:19 PM

Hello 999

Been sick for a few days but back in the saddle again.

Subject: RE: Parallelism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 12 - 11:28 PM

Well, it's good to have you back here. Hope to see you around tomorrow. I'm tired and gotta get some sleep. I'm glad you're feeling better. Hope it was nothing serious.