Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor breaks the “no parallel octaves” rule?Why are in music theory perfect fifth parallels forbidden?Is there some trick for counterpoint beyond 2 voices?Authorship of Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, BWV 565Dissonances and harmonyVarying touches in Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D MinorHow to write in counterpoint for a sonata?Is 2 measures sufficient for a fugue subject?Why is writing in free counterpoint so hard?How to keep going in the fugueHow to go about writing a second countersubject?Countersubject strategy, is my strategy a good one?

Dice rolling probability game

Do I need life insurance if I can cover my own funeral costs?

What do Xenomorphs eat in the Alien series?

Most cost effective thermostat setting: consistent temperature vs. lowest temperature possible

how to write formula in word in latex

Do I need to be arrogant to get ahead?

Existence of subset with given Hausdorff dimension

Are there verbs that are neither telic, or atelic?

Are all passive ability checks floors for active ability checks?

My Graph Theory Students

What did Alexander Pope mean by "Expletives their feeble Aid do join"?

Unexpected result from ArcLength

How to change two letters closest to a string and one letter immediately after a string using notepad++

Error in Twin Prime Conjecture

How to read the value of this capacitor?

Awsome yet unlucky path traversal

Why doesn't using two cd commands in bash script execute the second command?

How to deal with a cynical class?

How do anti-virus programs start at Windows boot?

Python if-else code style for reduced code for rounding floats

Is it true that good novels will automatically sell themselves on Amazon (and so on) and there is no need for one to waste time promoting?

What is the significance behind "40 days" that often appears in the Bible?

Welcoming 2019 Pi day: How to draw the letter π?

Min function accepting varying number of arguments in C++17



Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor breaks the “no parallel octaves” rule?


Why are in music theory perfect fifth parallels forbidden?Is there some trick for counterpoint beyond 2 voices?Authorship of Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, BWV 565Dissonances and harmonyVarying touches in Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D MinorHow to write in counterpoint for a sonata?Is 2 measures sufficient for a fugue subject?Why is writing in free counterpoint so hard?How to keep going in the fugueHow to go about writing a second countersubject?Countersubject strategy, is my strategy a good one?













2















I notice in his BWV 565, more well known as Toccata and Fugue in D minor, what looks like a lot of parallel octaves in the fugue. I have studied counterpoint before and every counterpoint resource I find says "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels" or something along those lines.



Here is the video starting at the fugue:








As you can see, right away, the subject is stated in octaves. There are several other moments where the octaves are very obvious. And these, if I'm not mistaken are parallel octaves, the same thing that every counterpoint teacher tells you to absolutely not use. I have been told by several people that these parallel octaves are not the same as the ones you need to avoid because of the specific voices they are in. Um, how does voice arrangement make any difference? Why isn't Bach breaking the rules every time he uses parallel octaves in this fugue? I thought parallel octaves were to always be avoided in Baroque counterpoint and that it is only really once you get to classical era and romantic era counterpoint that you are free to use octaves as much as you would like as long as the whole piece isn't just a string of octaves.



So I can understand the octave theme here in Beethoven's Grosse Fuge:








But why is Bach not breaking the rules of Baroque counterpoint with the parallel octaves in his Toccata and Fugue in D minor?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    Your first video is a piano transcription that is not how Bach originally wrote it or played it. If you listen to fugue played on an organ as originally written, there are no parallel octaves in the statement of the fugue, just a single line of notes. That first video you've linked should not be considered authoritative on the work.

    – Todd Wilcox
    10 hours ago







  • 1





    Oh also the moment the video starts is not at all the start of the fugue. It’s smack in the middle of the toccata. The subject of the fugue in question starts on A an octave higher and descends with A remaining a pedal tone. In the linked video, the fugue starts at 2:50.

    – Todd Wilcox
    10 hours ago











  • Bach didn't break the rule as this rule can't be applied for this compositions and not for the unisono passages. This question has also been answered here: music.stackexchange.com/questions/78011/…

    – Albrecht Hügli
    10 hours ago















2















I notice in his BWV 565, more well known as Toccata and Fugue in D minor, what looks like a lot of parallel octaves in the fugue. I have studied counterpoint before and every counterpoint resource I find says "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels" or something along those lines.



Here is the video starting at the fugue:








As you can see, right away, the subject is stated in octaves. There are several other moments where the octaves are very obvious. And these, if I'm not mistaken are parallel octaves, the same thing that every counterpoint teacher tells you to absolutely not use. I have been told by several people that these parallel octaves are not the same as the ones you need to avoid because of the specific voices they are in. Um, how does voice arrangement make any difference? Why isn't Bach breaking the rules every time he uses parallel octaves in this fugue? I thought parallel octaves were to always be avoided in Baroque counterpoint and that it is only really once you get to classical era and romantic era counterpoint that you are free to use octaves as much as you would like as long as the whole piece isn't just a string of octaves.



So I can understand the octave theme here in Beethoven's Grosse Fuge:








But why is Bach not breaking the rules of Baroque counterpoint with the parallel octaves in his Toccata and Fugue in D minor?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    Your first video is a piano transcription that is not how Bach originally wrote it or played it. If you listen to fugue played on an organ as originally written, there are no parallel octaves in the statement of the fugue, just a single line of notes. That first video you've linked should not be considered authoritative on the work.

    – Todd Wilcox
    10 hours ago







  • 1





    Oh also the moment the video starts is not at all the start of the fugue. It’s smack in the middle of the toccata. The subject of the fugue in question starts on A an octave higher and descends with A remaining a pedal tone. In the linked video, the fugue starts at 2:50.

    – Todd Wilcox
    10 hours ago











  • Bach didn't break the rule as this rule can't be applied for this compositions and not for the unisono passages. This question has also been answered here: music.stackexchange.com/questions/78011/…

    – Albrecht Hügli
    10 hours ago













2












2








2


1






I notice in his BWV 565, more well known as Toccata and Fugue in D minor, what looks like a lot of parallel octaves in the fugue. I have studied counterpoint before and every counterpoint resource I find says "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels" or something along those lines.



Here is the video starting at the fugue:








As you can see, right away, the subject is stated in octaves. There are several other moments where the octaves are very obvious. And these, if I'm not mistaken are parallel octaves, the same thing that every counterpoint teacher tells you to absolutely not use. I have been told by several people that these parallel octaves are not the same as the ones you need to avoid because of the specific voices they are in. Um, how does voice arrangement make any difference? Why isn't Bach breaking the rules every time he uses parallel octaves in this fugue? I thought parallel octaves were to always be avoided in Baroque counterpoint and that it is only really once you get to classical era and romantic era counterpoint that you are free to use octaves as much as you would like as long as the whole piece isn't just a string of octaves.



So I can understand the octave theme here in Beethoven's Grosse Fuge:








But why is Bach not breaking the rules of Baroque counterpoint with the parallel octaves in his Toccata and Fugue in D minor?










share|improve this question
















I notice in his BWV 565, more well known as Toccata and Fugue in D minor, what looks like a lot of parallel octaves in the fugue. I have studied counterpoint before and every counterpoint resource I find says "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels" or something along those lines.



Here is the video starting at the fugue:








As you can see, right away, the subject is stated in octaves. There are several other moments where the octaves are very obvious. And these, if I'm not mistaken are parallel octaves, the same thing that every counterpoint teacher tells you to absolutely not use. I have been told by several people that these parallel octaves are not the same as the ones you need to avoid because of the specific voices they are in. Um, how does voice arrangement make any difference? Why isn't Bach breaking the rules every time he uses parallel octaves in this fugue? I thought parallel octaves were to always be avoided in Baroque counterpoint and that it is only really once you get to classical era and romantic era counterpoint that you are free to use octaves as much as you would like as long as the whole piece isn't just a string of octaves.



So I can understand the octave theme here in Beethoven's Grosse Fuge:








But why is Bach not breaking the rules of Baroque counterpoint with the parallel octaves in his Toccata and Fugue in D minor?























j-s-bach counterpoint fugue






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 38 mins ago









200_success

1,134915




1,134915










asked 11 hours ago









CatersCaters

1,0341820




1,0341820







  • 1





    Your first video is a piano transcription that is not how Bach originally wrote it or played it. If you listen to fugue played on an organ as originally written, there are no parallel octaves in the statement of the fugue, just a single line of notes. That first video you've linked should not be considered authoritative on the work.

    – Todd Wilcox
    10 hours ago







  • 1





    Oh also the moment the video starts is not at all the start of the fugue. It’s smack in the middle of the toccata. The subject of the fugue in question starts on A an octave higher and descends with A remaining a pedal tone. In the linked video, the fugue starts at 2:50.

    – Todd Wilcox
    10 hours ago











  • Bach didn't break the rule as this rule can't be applied for this compositions and not for the unisono passages. This question has also been answered here: music.stackexchange.com/questions/78011/…

    – Albrecht Hügli
    10 hours ago












  • 1





    Your first video is a piano transcription that is not how Bach originally wrote it or played it. If you listen to fugue played on an organ as originally written, there are no parallel octaves in the statement of the fugue, just a single line of notes. That first video you've linked should not be considered authoritative on the work.

    – Todd Wilcox
    10 hours ago







  • 1





    Oh also the moment the video starts is not at all the start of the fugue. It’s smack in the middle of the toccata. The subject of the fugue in question starts on A an octave higher and descends with A remaining a pedal tone. In the linked video, the fugue starts at 2:50.

    – Todd Wilcox
    10 hours ago











  • Bach didn't break the rule as this rule can't be applied for this compositions and not for the unisono passages. This question has also been answered here: music.stackexchange.com/questions/78011/…

    – Albrecht Hügli
    10 hours ago







1




1





Your first video is a piano transcription that is not how Bach originally wrote it or played it. If you listen to fugue played on an organ as originally written, there are no parallel octaves in the statement of the fugue, just a single line of notes. That first video you've linked should not be considered authoritative on the work.

– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago






Your first video is a piano transcription that is not how Bach originally wrote it or played it. If you listen to fugue played on an organ as originally written, there are no parallel octaves in the statement of the fugue, just a single line of notes. That first video you've linked should not be considered authoritative on the work.

– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago





1




1





Oh also the moment the video starts is not at all the start of the fugue. It’s smack in the middle of the toccata. The subject of the fugue in question starts on A an octave higher and descends with A remaining a pedal tone. In the linked video, the fugue starts at 2:50.

– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago





Oh also the moment the video starts is not at all the start of the fugue. It’s smack in the middle of the toccata. The subject of the fugue in question starts on A an octave higher and descends with A remaining a pedal tone. In the linked video, the fugue starts at 2:50.

– Todd Wilcox
10 hours ago













Bach didn't break the rule as this rule can't be applied for this compositions and not for the unisono passages. This question has also been answered here: music.stackexchange.com/questions/78011/…

– Albrecht Hügli
10 hours ago





Bach didn't break the rule as this rule can't be applied for this compositions and not for the unisono passages. This question has also been answered here: music.stackexchange.com/questions/78011/…

– Albrecht Hügli
10 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















12














The counterpoint rules for parallel octaves (and fifths) apply in cases where two or more voices are meant to be heard as independent. Similarly for covered fifths and octaves. (Also for long strings of parallel thirds or sixths, maybe six or more for that matter.) Voices moving in parallel sound like a single voice with doubling or harmonization. These are not wrong unless one needs the independence of these voices. For piano, a single voice is often doubled (usually the bass or soprano or both, rarely inner voices) for emphasis. No independence is implied, it's just a thicker sound.






share|improve this answer


















  • 3





    I think this is the correct answer, explaining what the misunderstood rule is about, without heated rambling. And it explains why Bach did not break the rule, which was the original question.

    – piiperi
    9 hours ago


















4














The only rules about relative motion are in textbooks.



Those rules describe norms or ideals for voice leading in a specific style, but outside of pedagogy there aren't rules. The clearest evidence that these are norms rather than rules is the fact that you can find them in real music of the Baroque and Classical eras.



If you include cases of parallel and direct 5ths/octaves exhibited in harmonic reductions (reducing broken chords and other figuration to block chords) it's not too hard to find example.



It wasn't the norm so you don't find lots of examples. But if keep your eyes open for them (and other so-called rule breaking) you will find them.




You will hear this "there are not rules" but "you broke the rules" stuff all the time. The worst is when it's phrased as "composer X could break the rules, because he was a genius." No. Anyone can do anything they want anytime. You don't need to be a genius. This kind of teaching isn't helpful for explaining the reasons why rules were sometimes followed and sometimes not followed. A more insightful explanation is needed.



Personally, this is what I think is the critical factor: the voice leading rules - which most definitely were taught as a list of prohibitions - were part of the learned style which figured largely with church music. When a composer worked in the learned style - making sacred music or vocal music - their approach was more conservative and "followed the rules." But when the music was secular or insturmental - Galant style would be a contemporary label from that era - composers weren't so scrupulous about voice leading.



This might not apply to this specific Bach example. But my point is just to be aware that the voice leading norms applied to a particular style and musical styles were constantly evolving. Bach used many different styles.






share|improve this answer
































    3














    The example you use from BWV565 is not voicing but registration. There are no independent voices having some parallel movement in octaves. Instead there is a melodic line reinforced by octaves. In notation, you'd never give the constituent notes separate stems like you would for separate voices.



    Organs have registers that will add pure octaves, pure fifths, pure thirds. They are used for creating a particular sound, not harmony. They don't share the temperament of the organ's tuning and they are not diatonic (when actually playing parallel fifths, you come across B-F and thirds change between major and minor all the time). Adding a fifth is sometimes done in bass voices for sound but rarely elsewhere, and fifths are prone to temperament. But in basically all common temperaments, octaves are pure throughout (stretch tuning on pianos is a different phenomenon). You can actually play them on the organ keyboard for reinforcement with an effect rather similar to pulling them in via registration.



    The parallel octaves at the start of BWV565 are in the available handwritten copy (there is no autograph to be found any more I think). I think that part of the rationale found for it these days is that the piece was written with the intent of accommodating comparatively small organs with few registers, possibly as a test piece: the abrupt changes between filigrane single-line high coloratura and full-bodied low chords with pedal bass pose hellish difficulties for the typical air supply systems of older baroque organs: basically you need the kind of equalizing bellows systems Silbermann came up with in order to stop Bach from making his organs look bad. The inertia of a single main bellows will not allow switching from heavy air flow to very little without disgraciously overblowing the small pipes.



    But I digress: the main point is that these octaves are not separate voices. They just add to the sound quality of a single coherent voice.






    share|improve this answer






























      2














      Bach didn't break the rule because this rule can't be applied for these 2 examples and especially not for the unisono passages.




      "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels"




      If you google this "rule" you get:



      No results found for "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels".



      Why:



      This rule has been developed by theorists for the four part counteroint progression.



      Now your examples as Bach's Toccata are either not pieces for a four voices (Bach) or have unison sections (Beethoven), so there are logically pallalels of 8vas.



      You'll find more information here:



      http://www.choraleguide.com/vl-parallels.php






      share|improve this answer

























      • So, there being parallel octaves is not really an issue unless it is 4 independent voices, is that what you're saying? So if I am writing for 3 or 5 independent voices, it is fine if I end up with a few parallel octaves here and there?

        – Caters
        9 hours ago











      • The rule describes only what happens when the voices are leading in the same direction: we can’t differ them from each other as fine as when they are indepedent! So if you want that we hear their autonomy it sill be better to lead them in different ways. That’s it! So this problem will exist too with 2 or 3 voices. Unless yor purpose is to show a special effect: e.g. The mixtures in Racel’s Bolero or the an intended reference to the organum style or church sound, pop or special gospel sound.

        – Albrecht Hügli
        8 hours ago



















      1














      No, Bach didn't break any rules, because there are no rules. What Bach did was write music that people still want to listen to, a few centuries after he wrote it.



      When you read a list of "unbreakable rules* in a theory book, ask yourself one simple question: Did the author of that book ever write any music that is regularly performed today?



      Of course in a few cases the answer is "yes," but you are probably not getting your information about "unbreakable rules" from the few "theory books" written by people who are well-known as composers - like Rameau, Schoenberg, or Hindemith, to give three examples.



      Incidentally, you didn't mention the other gross "rule breaking" in BWV565: the answer in the fugue isn't even in the right key! It's in the subdominant, not the dominant!! Shock horror!!! Didn't Bach even know the dominant of D was A, not G????!!!!



      But if you want to see Bach really mess around with the idea that fugues have "rules", look at Variation 10 of the Goldberg Variations. After a conventional start with subject / answer / subject, the rest is mayhem, so far as conventional theory is concerned - but it works fine, as music.
      enter image description here






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.



















        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "240"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader:
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        ,
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );













        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f81489%2fbachs-toccata-and-fugue-in-d-minor-breaks-the-no-parallel-octaves-rule%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        12














        The counterpoint rules for parallel octaves (and fifths) apply in cases where two or more voices are meant to be heard as independent. Similarly for covered fifths and octaves. (Also for long strings of parallel thirds or sixths, maybe six or more for that matter.) Voices moving in parallel sound like a single voice with doubling or harmonization. These are not wrong unless one needs the independence of these voices. For piano, a single voice is often doubled (usually the bass or soprano or both, rarely inner voices) for emphasis. No independence is implied, it's just a thicker sound.






        share|improve this answer


















        • 3





          I think this is the correct answer, explaining what the misunderstood rule is about, without heated rambling. And it explains why Bach did not break the rule, which was the original question.

          – piiperi
          9 hours ago















        12














        The counterpoint rules for parallel octaves (and fifths) apply in cases where two or more voices are meant to be heard as independent. Similarly for covered fifths and octaves. (Also for long strings of parallel thirds or sixths, maybe six or more for that matter.) Voices moving in parallel sound like a single voice with doubling or harmonization. These are not wrong unless one needs the independence of these voices. For piano, a single voice is often doubled (usually the bass or soprano or both, rarely inner voices) for emphasis. No independence is implied, it's just a thicker sound.






        share|improve this answer


















        • 3





          I think this is the correct answer, explaining what the misunderstood rule is about, without heated rambling. And it explains why Bach did not break the rule, which was the original question.

          – piiperi
          9 hours ago













        12












        12








        12







        The counterpoint rules for parallel octaves (and fifths) apply in cases where two or more voices are meant to be heard as independent. Similarly for covered fifths and octaves. (Also for long strings of parallel thirds or sixths, maybe six or more for that matter.) Voices moving in parallel sound like a single voice with doubling or harmonization. These are not wrong unless one needs the independence of these voices. For piano, a single voice is often doubled (usually the bass or soprano or both, rarely inner voices) for emphasis. No independence is implied, it's just a thicker sound.






        share|improve this answer













        The counterpoint rules for parallel octaves (and fifths) apply in cases where two or more voices are meant to be heard as independent. Similarly for covered fifths and octaves. (Also for long strings of parallel thirds or sixths, maybe six or more for that matter.) Voices moving in parallel sound like a single voice with doubling or harmonization. These are not wrong unless one needs the independence of these voices. For piano, a single voice is often doubled (usually the bass or soprano or both, rarely inner voices) for emphasis. No independence is implied, it's just a thicker sound.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 10 hours ago









        ttwttw

        8,713931




        8,713931







        • 3





          I think this is the correct answer, explaining what the misunderstood rule is about, without heated rambling. And it explains why Bach did not break the rule, which was the original question.

          – piiperi
          9 hours ago












        • 3





          I think this is the correct answer, explaining what the misunderstood rule is about, without heated rambling. And it explains why Bach did not break the rule, which was the original question.

          – piiperi
          9 hours ago







        3




        3





        I think this is the correct answer, explaining what the misunderstood rule is about, without heated rambling. And it explains why Bach did not break the rule, which was the original question.

        – piiperi
        9 hours ago





        I think this is the correct answer, explaining what the misunderstood rule is about, without heated rambling. And it explains why Bach did not break the rule, which was the original question.

        – piiperi
        9 hours ago











        4














        The only rules about relative motion are in textbooks.



        Those rules describe norms or ideals for voice leading in a specific style, but outside of pedagogy there aren't rules. The clearest evidence that these are norms rather than rules is the fact that you can find them in real music of the Baroque and Classical eras.



        If you include cases of parallel and direct 5ths/octaves exhibited in harmonic reductions (reducing broken chords and other figuration to block chords) it's not too hard to find example.



        It wasn't the norm so you don't find lots of examples. But if keep your eyes open for them (and other so-called rule breaking) you will find them.




        You will hear this "there are not rules" but "you broke the rules" stuff all the time. The worst is when it's phrased as "composer X could break the rules, because he was a genius." No. Anyone can do anything they want anytime. You don't need to be a genius. This kind of teaching isn't helpful for explaining the reasons why rules were sometimes followed and sometimes not followed. A more insightful explanation is needed.



        Personally, this is what I think is the critical factor: the voice leading rules - which most definitely were taught as a list of prohibitions - were part of the learned style which figured largely with church music. When a composer worked in the learned style - making sacred music or vocal music - their approach was more conservative and "followed the rules." But when the music was secular or insturmental - Galant style would be a contemporary label from that era - composers weren't so scrupulous about voice leading.



        This might not apply to this specific Bach example. But my point is just to be aware that the voice leading norms applied to a particular style and musical styles were constantly evolving. Bach used many different styles.






        share|improve this answer





























          4














          The only rules about relative motion are in textbooks.



          Those rules describe norms or ideals for voice leading in a specific style, but outside of pedagogy there aren't rules. The clearest evidence that these are norms rather than rules is the fact that you can find them in real music of the Baroque and Classical eras.



          If you include cases of parallel and direct 5ths/octaves exhibited in harmonic reductions (reducing broken chords and other figuration to block chords) it's not too hard to find example.



          It wasn't the norm so you don't find lots of examples. But if keep your eyes open for them (and other so-called rule breaking) you will find them.




          You will hear this "there are not rules" but "you broke the rules" stuff all the time. The worst is when it's phrased as "composer X could break the rules, because he was a genius." No. Anyone can do anything they want anytime. You don't need to be a genius. This kind of teaching isn't helpful for explaining the reasons why rules were sometimes followed and sometimes not followed. A more insightful explanation is needed.



          Personally, this is what I think is the critical factor: the voice leading rules - which most definitely were taught as a list of prohibitions - were part of the learned style which figured largely with church music. When a composer worked in the learned style - making sacred music or vocal music - their approach was more conservative and "followed the rules." But when the music was secular or insturmental - Galant style would be a contemporary label from that era - composers weren't so scrupulous about voice leading.



          This might not apply to this specific Bach example. But my point is just to be aware that the voice leading norms applied to a particular style and musical styles were constantly evolving. Bach used many different styles.






          share|improve this answer



























            4












            4








            4







            The only rules about relative motion are in textbooks.



            Those rules describe norms or ideals for voice leading in a specific style, but outside of pedagogy there aren't rules. The clearest evidence that these are norms rather than rules is the fact that you can find them in real music of the Baroque and Classical eras.



            If you include cases of parallel and direct 5ths/octaves exhibited in harmonic reductions (reducing broken chords and other figuration to block chords) it's not too hard to find example.



            It wasn't the norm so you don't find lots of examples. But if keep your eyes open for them (and other so-called rule breaking) you will find them.




            You will hear this "there are not rules" but "you broke the rules" stuff all the time. The worst is when it's phrased as "composer X could break the rules, because he was a genius." No. Anyone can do anything they want anytime. You don't need to be a genius. This kind of teaching isn't helpful for explaining the reasons why rules were sometimes followed and sometimes not followed. A more insightful explanation is needed.



            Personally, this is what I think is the critical factor: the voice leading rules - which most definitely were taught as a list of prohibitions - were part of the learned style which figured largely with church music. When a composer worked in the learned style - making sacred music or vocal music - their approach was more conservative and "followed the rules." But when the music was secular or insturmental - Galant style would be a contemporary label from that era - composers weren't so scrupulous about voice leading.



            This might not apply to this specific Bach example. But my point is just to be aware that the voice leading norms applied to a particular style and musical styles were constantly evolving. Bach used many different styles.






            share|improve this answer















            The only rules about relative motion are in textbooks.



            Those rules describe norms or ideals for voice leading in a specific style, but outside of pedagogy there aren't rules. The clearest evidence that these are norms rather than rules is the fact that you can find them in real music of the Baroque and Classical eras.



            If you include cases of parallel and direct 5ths/octaves exhibited in harmonic reductions (reducing broken chords and other figuration to block chords) it's not too hard to find example.



            It wasn't the norm so you don't find lots of examples. But if keep your eyes open for them (and other so-called rule breaking) you will find them.




            You will hear this "there are not rules" but "you broke the rules" stuff all the time. The worst is when it's phrased as "composer X could break the rules, because he was a genius." No. Anyone can do anything they want anytime. You don't need to be a genius. This kind of teaching isn't helpful for explaining the reasons why rules were sometimes followed and sometimes not followed. A more insightful explanation is needed.



            Personally, this is what I think is the critical factor: the voice leading rules - which most definitely were taught as a list of prohibitions - were part of the learned style which figured largely with church music. When a composer worked in the learned style - making sacred music or vocal music - their approach was more conservative and "followed the rules." But when the music was secular or insturmental - Galant style would be a contemporary label from that era - composers weren't so scrupulous about voice leading.



            This might not apply to this specific Bach example. But my point is just to be aware that the voice leading norms applied to a particular style and musical styles were constantly evolving. Bach used many different styles.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 10 hours ago

























            answered 11 hours ago









            Michael CurtisMichael Curtis

            9,527534




            9,527534





















                3














                The example you use from BWV565 is not voicing but registration. There are no independent voices having some parallel movement in octaves. Instead there is a melodic line reinforced by octaves. In notation, you'd never give the constituent notes separate stems like you would for separate voices.



                Organs have registers that will add pure octaves, pure fifths, pure thirds. They are used for creating a particular sound, not harmony. They don't share the temperament of the organ's tuning and they are not diatonic (when actually playing parallel fifths, you come across B-F and thirds change between major and minor all the time). Adding a fifth is sometimes done in bass voices for sound but rarely elsewhere, and fifths are prone to temperament. But in basically all common temperaments, octaves are pure throughout (stretch tuning on pianos is a different phenomenon). You can actually play them on the organ keyboard for reinforcement with an effect rather similar to pulling them in via registration.



                The parallel octaves at the start of BWV565 are in the available handwritten copy (there is no autograph to be found any more I think). I think that part of the rationale found for it these days is that the piece was written with the intent of accommodating comparatively small organs with few registers, possibly as a test piece: the abrupt changes between filigrane single-line high coloratura and full-bodied low chords with pedal bass pose hellish difficulties for the typical air supply systems of older baroque organs: basically you need the kind of equalizing bellows systems Silbermann came up with in order to stop Bach from making his organs look bad. The inertia of a single main bellows will not allow switching from heavy air flow to very little without disgraciously overblowing the small pipes.



                But I digress: the main point is that these octaves are not separate voices. They just add to the sound quality of a single coherent voice.






                share|improve this answer



























                  3














                  The example you use from BWV565 is not voicing but registration. There are no independent voices having some parallel movement in octaves. Instead there is a melodic line reinforced by octaves. In notation, you'd never give the constituent notes separate stems like you would for separate voices.



                  Organs have registers that will add pure octaves, pure fifths, pure thirds. They are used for creating a particular sound, not harmony. They don't share the temperament of the organ's tuning and they are not diatonic (when actually playing parallel fifths, you come across B-F and thirds change between major and minor all the time). Adding a fifth is sometimes done in bass voices for sound but rarely elsewhere, and fifths are prone to temperament. But in basically all common temperaments, octaves are pure throughout (stretch tuning on pianos is a different phenomenon). You can actually play them on the organ keyboard for reinforcement with an effect rather similar to pulling them in via registration.



                  The parallel octaves at the start of BWV565 are in the available handwritten copy (there is no autograph to be found any more I think). I think that part of the rationale found for it these days is that the piece was written with the intent of accommodating comparatively small organs with few registers, possibly as a test piece: the abrupt changes between filigrane single-line high coloratura and full-bodied low chords with pedal bass pose hellish difficulties for the typical air supply systems of older baroque organs: basically you need the kind of equalizing bellows systems Silbermann came up with in order to stop Bach from making his organs look bad. The inertia of a single main bellows will not allow switching from heavy air flow to very little without disgraciously overblowing the small pipes.



                  But I digress: the main point is that these octaves are not separate voices. They just add to the sound quality of a single coherent voice.






                  share|improve this answer

























                    3












                    3








                    3







                    The example you use from BWV565 is not voicing but registration. There are no independent voices having some parallel movement in octaves. Instead there is a melodic line reinforced by octaves. In notation, you'd never give the constituent notes separate stems like you would for separate voices.



                    Organs have registers that will add pure octaves, pure fifths, pure thirds. They are used for creating a particular sound, not harmony. They don't share the temperament of the organ's tuning and they are not diatonic (when actually playing parallel fifths, you come across B-F and thirds change between major and minor all the time). Adding a fifth is sometimes done in bass voices for sound but rarely elsewhere, and fifths are prone to temperament. But in basically all common temperaments, octaves are pure throughout (stretch tuning on pianos is a different phenomenon). You can actually play them on the organ keyboard for reinforcement with an effect rather similar to pulling them in via registration.



                    The parallel octaves at the start of BWV565 are in the available handwritten copy (there is no autograph to be found any more I think). I think that part of the rationale found for it these days is that the piece was written with the intent of accommodating comparatively small organs with few registers, possibly as a test piece: the abrupt changes between filigrane single-line high coloratura and full-bodied low chords with pedal bass pose hellish difficulties for the typical air supply systems of older baroque organs: basically you need the kind of equalizing bellows systems Silbermann came up with in order to stop Bach from making his organs look bad. The inertia of a single main bellows will not allow switching from heavy air flow to very little without disgraciously overblowing the small pipes.



                    But I digress: the main point is that these octaves are not separate voices. They just add to the sound quality of a single coherent voice.






                    share|improve this answer













                    The example you use from BWV565 is not voicing but registration. There are no independent voices having some parallel movement in octaves. Instead there is a melodic line reinforced by octaves. In notation, you'd never give the constituent notes separate stems like you would for separate voices.



                    Organs have registers that will add pure octaves, pure fifths, pure thirds. They are used for creating a particular sound, not harmony. They don't share the temperament of the organ's tuning and they are not diatonic (when actually playing parallel fifths, you come across B-F and thirds change between major and minor all the time). Adding a fifth is sometimes done in bass voices for sound but rarely elsewhere, and fifths are prone to temperament. But in basically all common temperaments, octaves are pure throughout (stretch tuning on pianos is a different phenomenon). You can actually play them on the organ keyboard for reinforcement with an effect rather similar to pulling them in via registration.



                    The parallel octaves at the start of BWV565 are in the available handwritten copy (there is no autograph to be found any more I think). I think that part of the rationale found for it these days is that the piece was written with the intent of accommodating comparatively small organs with few registers, possibly as a test piece: the abrupt changes between filigrane single-line high coloratura and full-bodied low chords with pedal bass pose hellish difficulties for the typical air supply systems of older baroque organs: basically you need the kind of equalizing bellows systems Silbermann came up with in order to stop Bach from making his organs look bad. The inertia of a single main bellows will not allow switching from heavy air flow to very little without disgraciously overblowing the small pipes.



                    But I digress: the main point is that these octaves are not separate voices. They just add to the sound quality of a single coherent voice.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 9 hours ago







                    user58382




























                        2














                        Bach didn't break the rule because this rule can't be applied for these 2 examples and especially not for the unisono passages.




                        "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels"




                        If you google this "rule" you get:



                        No results found for "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels".



                        Why:



                        This rule has been developed by theorists for the four part counteroint progression.



                        Now your examples as Bach's Toccata are either not pieces for a four voices (Bach) or have unison sections (Beethoven), so there are logically pallalels of 8vas.



                        You'll find more information here:



                        http://www.choraleguide.com/vl-parallels.php






                        share|improve this answer

























                        • So, there being parallel octaves is not really an issue unless it is 4 independent voices, is that what you're saying? So if I am writing for 3 or 5 independent voices, it is fine if I end up with a few parallel octaves here and there?

                          – Caters
                          9 hours ago











                        • The rule describes only what happens when the voices are leading in the same direction: we can’t differ them from each other as fine as when they are indepedent! So if you want that we hear their autonomy it sill be better to lead them in different ways. That’s it! So this problem will exist too with 2 or 3 voices. Unless yor purpose is to show a special effect: e.g. The mixtures in Racel’s Bolero or the an intended reference to the organum style or church sound, pop or special gospel sound.

                          – Albrecht Hügli
                          8 hours ago
















                        2














                        Bach didn't break the rule because this rule can't be applied for these 2 examples and especially not for the unisono passages.




                        "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels"




                        If you google this "rule" you get:



                        No results found for "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels".



                        Why:



                        This rule has been developed by theorists for the four part counteroint progression.



                        Now your examples as Bach's Toccata are either not pieces for a four voices (Bach) or have unison sections (Beethoven), so there are logically pallalels of 8vas.



                        You'll find more information here:



                        http://www.choraleguide.com/vl-parallels.php






                        share|improve this answer

























                        • So, there being parallel octaves is not really an issue unless it is 4 independent voices, is that what you're saying? So if I am writing for 3 or 5 independent voices, it is fine if I end up with a few parallel octaves here and there?

                          – Caters
                          9 hours ago











                        • The rule describes only what happens when the voices are leading in the same direction: we can’t differ them from each other as fine as when they are indepedent! So if you want that we hear their autonomy it sill be better to lead them in different ways. That’s it! So this problem will exist too with 2 or 3 voices. Unless yor purpose is to show a special effect: e.g. The mixtures in Racel’s Bolero or the an intended reference to the organum style or church sound, pop or special gospel sound.

                          – Albrecht Hügli
                          8 hours ago














                        2












                        2








                        2







                        Bach didn't break the rule because this rule can't be applied for these 2 examples and especially not for the unisono passages.




                        "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels"




                        If you google this "rule" you get:



                        No results found for "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels".



                        Why:



                        This rule has been developed by theorists for the four part counteroint progression.



                        Now your examples as Bach's Toccata are either not pieces for a four voices (Bach) or have unison sections (Beethoven), so there are logically pallalels of 8vas.



                        You'll find more information here:



                        http://www.choraleguide.com/vl-parallels.php






                        share|improve this answer















                        Bach didn't break the rule because this rule can't be applied for these 2 examples and especially not for the unisono passages.




                        "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels"




                        If you google this "rule" you get:



                        No results found for "Absolutely no parallel 5ths or 8ves between any 2 voices. If you have an octave or a fifth, use stepwise motion that is either contrary or oblique to avoid parallels".



                        Why:



                        This rule has been developed by theorists for the four part counteroint progression.



                        Now your examples as Bach's Toccata are either not pieces for a four voices (Bach) or have unison sections (Beethoven), so there are logically pallalels of 8vas.



                        You'll find more information here:



                        http://www.choraleguide.com/vl-parallels.php







                        share|improve this answer














                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited 8 hours ago

























                        answered 10 hours ago









                        Albrecht HügliAlbrecht Hügli

                        3,192220




                        3,192220












                        • So, there being parallel octaves is not really an issue unless it is 4 independent voices, is that what you're saying? So if I am writing for 3 or 5 independent voices, it is fine if I end up with a few parallel octaves here and there?

                          – Caters
                          9 hours ago











                        • The rule describes only what happens when the voices are leading in the same direction: we can’t differ them from each other as fine as when they are indepedent! So if you want that we hear their autonomy it sill be better to lead them in different ways. That’s it! So this problem will exist too with 2 or 3 voices. Unless yor purpose is to show a special effect: e.g. The mixtures in Racel’s Bolero or the an intended reference to the organum style or church sound, pop or special gospel sound.

                          – Albrecht Hügli
                          8 hours ago


















                        • So, there being parallel octaves is not really an issue unless it is 4 independent voices, is that what you're saying? So if I am writing for 3 or 5 independent voices, it is fine if I end up with a few parallel octaves here and there?

                          – Caters
                          9 hours ago











                        • The rule describes only what happens when the voices are leading in the same direction: we can’t differ them from each other as fine as when they are indepedent! So if you want that we hear their autonomy it sill be better to lead them in different ways. That’s it! So this problem will exist too with 2 or 3 voices. Unless yor purpose is to show a special effect: e.g. The mixtures in Racel’s Bolero or the an intended reference to the organum style or church sound, pop or special gospel sound.

                          – Albrecht Hügli
                          8 hours ago

















                        So, there being parallel octaves is not really an issue unless it is 4 independent voices, is that what you're saying? So if I am writing for 3 or 5 independent voices, it is fine if I end up with a few parallel octaves here and there?

                        – Caters
                        9 hours ago





                        So, there being parallel octaves is not really an issue unless it is 4 independent voices, is that what you're saying? So if I am writing for 3 or 5 independent voices, it is fine if I end up with a few parallel octaves here and there?

                        – Caters
                        9 hours ago













                        The rule describes only what happens when the voices are leading in the same direction: we can’t differ them from each other as fine as when they are indepedent! So if you want that we hear their autonomy it sill be better to lead them in different ways. That’s it! So this problem will exist too with 2 or 3 voices. Unless yor purpose is to show a special effect: e.g. The mixtures in Racel’s Bolero or the an intended reference to the organum style or church sound, pop or special gospel sound.

                        – Albrecht Hügli
                        8 hours ago






                        The rule describes only what happens when the voices are leading in the same direction: we can’t differ them from each other as fine as when they are indepedent! So if you want that we hear their autonomy it sill be better to lead them in different ways. That’s it! So this problem will exist too with 2 or 3 voices. Unless yor purpose is to show a special effect: e.g. The mixtures in Racel’s Bolero or the an intended reference to the organum style or church sound, pop or special gospel sound.

                        – Albrecht Hügli
                        8 hours ago












                        1














                        No, Bach didn't break any rules, because there are no rules. What Bach did was write music that people still want to listen to, a few centuries after he wrote it.



                        When you read a list of "unbreakable rules* in a theory book, ask yourself one simple question: Did the author of that book ever write any music that is regularly performed today?



                        Of course in a few cases the answer is "yes," but you are probably not getting your information about "unbreakable rules" from the few "theory books" written by people who are well-known as composers - like Rameau, Schoenberg, or Hindemith, to give three examples.



                        Incidentally, you didn't mention the other gross "rule breaking" in BWV565: the answer in the fugue isn't even in the right key! It's in the subdominant, not the dominant!! Shock horror!!! Didn't Bach even know the dominant of D was A, not G????!!!!



                        But if you want to see Bach really mess around with the idea that fugues have "rules", look at Variation 10 of the Goldberg Variations. After a conventional start with subject / answer / subject, the rest is mayhem, so far as conventional theory is concerned - but it works fine, as music.
                        enter image description here






                        share|improve this answer








                        New contributor




                        guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                          1














                          No, Bach didn't break any rules, because there are no rules. What Bach did was write music that people still want to listen to, a few centuries after he wrote it.



                          When you read a list of "unbreakable rules* in a theory book, ask yourself one simple question: Did the author of that book ever write any music that is regularly performed today?



                          Of course in a few cases the answer is "yes," but you are probably not getting your information about "unbreakable rules" from the few "theory books" written by people who are well-known as composers - like Rameau, Schoenberg, or Hindemith, to give three examples.



                          Incidentally, you didn't mention the other gross "rule breaking" in BWV565: the answer in the fugue isn't even in the right key! It's in the subdominant, not the dominant!! Shock horror!!! Didn't Bach even know the dominant of D was A, not G????!!!!



                          But if you want to see Bach really mess around with the idea that fugues have "rules", look at Variation 10 of the Goldberg Variations. After a conventional start with subject / answer / subject, the rest is mayhem, so far as conventional theory is concerned - but it works fine, as music.
                          enter image description here






                          share|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                            1












                            1








                            1







                            No, Bach didn't break any rules, because there are no rules. What Bach did was write music that people still want to listen to, a few centuries after he wrote it.



                            When you read a list of "unbreakable rules* in a theory book, ask yourself one simple question: Did the author of that book ever write any music that is regularly performed today?



                            Of course in a few cases the answer is "yes," but you are probably not getting your information about "unbreakable rules" from the few "theory books" written by people who are well-known as composers - like Rameau, Schoenberg, or Hindemith, to give three examples.



                            Incidentally, you didn't mention the other gross "rule breaking" in BWV565: the answer in the fugue isn't even in the right key! It's in the subdominant, not the dominant!! Shock horror!!! Didn't Bach even know the dominant of D was A, not G????!!!!



                            But if you want to see Bach really mess around with the idea that fugues have "rules", look at Variation 10 of the Goldberg Variations. After a conventional start with subject / answer / subject, the rest is mayhem, so far as conventional theory is concerned - but it works fine, as music.
                            enter image description here






                            share|improve this answer








                            New contributor




                            guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.










                            No, Bach didn't break any rules, because there are no rules. What Bach did was write music that people still want to listen to, a few centuries after he wrote it.



                            When you read a list of "unbreakable rules* in a theory book, ask yourself one simple question: Did the author of that book ever write any music that is regularly performed today?



                            Of course in a few cases the answer is "yes," but you are probably not getting your information about "unbreakable rules" from the few "theory books" written by people who are well-known as composers - like Rameau, Schoenberg, or Hindemith, to give three examples.



                            Incidentally, you didn't mention the other gross "rule breaking" in BWV565: the answer in the fugue isn't even in the right key! It's in the subdominant, not the dominant!! Shock horror!!! Didn't Bach even know the dominant of D was A, not G????!!!!



                            But if you want to see Bach really mess around with the idea that fugues have "rules", look at Variation 10 of the Goldberg Variations. After a conventional start with subject / answer / subject, the rest is mayhem, so far as conventional theory is concerned - but it works fine, as music.
                            enter image description here







                            share|improve this answer








                            New contributor




                            guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.









                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer






                            New contributor




                            guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.









                            answered 10 hours ago









                            guestguest

                            191




                            191




                            New contributor




                            guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.





                            New contributor





                            guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.






                            guest is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.



























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded
















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid


                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f81489%2fbachs-toccata-and-fugue-in-d-minor-breaks-the-no-parallel-octaves-rule%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Möglingen Índice Localización Historia Demografía Referencias Enlaces externos Menú de navegación48°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.129166666666748°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.1291666666667Sitio web oficial Mapa de Möglingen«Gemeinden in Deutschland nach Fläche, Bevölkerung und Postleitzahl am 30.09.2016»Möglingen

                                Virtualbox - Configuration error: Querying “UUID” failed (VERR_CFGM_VALUE_NOT_FOUND)“VERR_SUPLIB_WORLD_WRITABLE” error when trying to installing OS in virtualboxVirtual Box Kernel errorFailed to open a seesion for the virtual machineFailed to open a session for the virtual machineUbuntu 14.04 LTS Virtualbox errorcan't use VM VirtualBoxusing virtualboxI can't run Linux-64 Bit on VirtualBoxUnable to insert the virtual optical disk (VBoxguestaddition) in virtual machine for ubuntu server in win 10VirtuaBox in Ubuntu 18.04 Issues with Win10.ISO Installation

                                Torre de la Isleta Índice Véase también Referencias Bibliografía Enlaces externos Menú de navegación38°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.3838888938°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.38388889Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta o Torre Saleta. Base de datos de bienes inmuebles. Patrimonio Cultural. Secretaría de Estado de CulturaFicha BIC Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta. Dirección General de Patrimonio Cultural. Generalitat ValencianaLugares de interés. Ayuntamiento del CampelloTorre de la Isleta en CastillosNet.org