Talk:Rule of the octave

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Music theory This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

If the French and German wikis had articles on this subject they would presumably be at fr:trait d'octave and de:octave-gang according to Hiles, John (1882). A catechism of harmony, thorough-bass, and modulation, with examples, p.82. ISBN 1141609991. Hyacinth (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiles is wrong here, at least as of today: In German, this is called de:Oktavregel. --User:Haraldmmueller 10:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The visual example currently on the page has mistakes which might be a little confusing or else misleading.

In the first line (ascending scale), the fourth chord should be labelled a ii 6/5, not IV 6/5. It would be IV if the F was in the bass without a D present. Perhaps I am mistaken, but the presence of the D makes this a Dm7/F, or a ii 6/5. Also, the sixth chord is labelled IV 6/5, except that there is no 5 present (an E), meaning it should only read IV 6. The penultimate chord has no figures, but is quite obviously a V 6/5 and should have those figures to indicate such.

The descending line also has an error. The third chord (over A, scale degree six, submediant) has figures for V/V 6/4, except that the seventh (3) is present, meaning the figures should read 4/3 or 6/4/3.

Is this example taken directly from the sources or just compiled by an amateur? The citations would seem to imply that the example comes from both sources, but unless I am missing some pedagogical element, I doubt that both sources would show exactly the same mistake. Looking at the Hiles source here (https://archive.org/details/acatechismharmo00hilegoog), page 82 demonstrates the rule of the octave for a major scale ascending and descending. Page 82 should be cited if it is indeed the source. If it is the source, we can see the error created - perhaps by the grahpic creator - in moving the penultimate and antepenultimate figures ahead by one tone and misharmonising or mislabelling the remaining errors. Zeppelin42 (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just replaced the faulty graphic with an in-line score. However, according to Hiles, the third chord on the descending bass line should be A_#6 instead of A_#6_4_3. Unfortunately I was not able to harmonise A_#6 without adding a parallel octave. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about

or

--User:Haraldmmueller 09:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The example does not reproduce the one given by John Hiles, which consists merely in the bass ascending and descending lines, with Arabic numerals above; there is no fundamental bass in Roman numerals, nor the chords represented here, and the Arabic numerals are different. This example should be removed, and replaced by another one. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "parallel fifths" identified by @Pbarreto.crypto are an example of "piano fifths"; a voice assignment for SATB can easily avoid them like this:

A and T cross each other on the 7th chord. As T is a male voice and A a female one, there will be no perception of parallel fifths for the listener. Thus, it is not at all clear that the given example contains an "error". User:Haraldmmueller 07:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]