"Margo Schulter" <***@web1.calweb.com> wrote in message
news:44a0ad45$0$84233
[snip]
Post by Margo SchulterHi, there, Steve, and maybe different people define these terms differently --
especially in attaching connotations. That is, we might have a consensus
that monophony means "one line only" -- but have different perceptions on just
how prevalent this is, given our sense of time, place, and commmon genres.
Yes, when I responded Margo, I was tempted to qualify my statments more.
Let's say, in my experience, monophony is used in three general contexts:
one is when it is used to refer to chant, or to make a distinction between
monophonic chant and polyphonic material, one when people are writing
"academically" about music of other cultures (for instance, they may say an
unaccompanied folk song is monophonic) and the other is a more genric use of
the term to apply to anything (no matter when or where it was written) is it
consists of just a single line (and thus there is monphony in free jazz,
rock, folk, etc.).
Post by Margo SchulterPlease let me ask an interesting question: Is it possible that my reading of
these terms is colored by the fact that a large part of what I hear, play,
or compose is in a medieval or Renaissance style, so that what I take as
"normal" might be less accustomed to others? [Now having looked at your
concluding summary, I might guess that we'd both answer, "Likely yes."]
Agreed.
Post by Margo SchulterI've always assumed that if I'm walking along and sing a melody a cappella,
that's monophony -- unless maybe I'm doing overtone chanting, in which case
the classification might be more problematic.
Yes, there's one of those darn qualifications I was talking about. But, you
raise an interesting point by saying you're singing a melody "a cappella".
That term, like the others we're discussing, in my experience is used in
more specific, rather than more generic situations. I would say a person
singing a song by themself would be singing unaccompanied, or solo. A
cappella for me refers to, again, a couple of situations: Sacred choral
music (unaccompanied of course) narrowly, and any unaccompanied choral music
(or sections thereof) more broadly. Like monophony, I would accept an even
broader definition that includes a solo (1 person, or multiple persons on
one part) unaccompanied vocal piece.
Post by Margo SchulterThe term "monophony" as I've seen it used typically refers not only to Gregorian
and other traditions of liturgical chant, but also to the music of the troubadours
or trobadors, the trouveres, the minnesingers, and also the later meistersingers,
as well as people doing nonliturgical things in Latin like the goliards.
Post by Steve LathamMonophony went out of style when Polyphony came along,
I'd say that the two overlap, with lots of later chant settings like tropes and
sequences being written at the same time as polyphony (10th-13th centuries), and
secular songs by the trouveres, for example, at the same time as the 13th-century
motet, which drew on this tradition and borrowed lots of the melodies and refrains.
Adam de la Halle is famous both for his monophonic songs (including the _Play of
Robin and Marion, of course) and his three-voice rondeaux and motet settings.
Oh, obviously. But I mean it in the respect that Jazz when out of style when
Rock hit the scene. Sure, there is a lot of overlap, and your jazz
afficionados will say that jazz is alive and well (and it is), but Rock
(and/or Rock and Roll) became the predominant form of popular music
entertainment in the 50s through the 90s (I don't know what to call what we
have now - seems like "pop" always works for the current style!). Obviously
I understand that while we're talking about decades here, we tend to look at
centuries or even millenia the farther into the past we go. My point would
be that obviously, monophony gave way to polyphony over an extended period
of time (but see below).
[snip]
Post by Margo SchulterIn liturgical practice, the alternation of plainsong and polyphony remained very
common -- a special case, but a pervasive one.
Absolutely. And this is where that broader definition of monophony comes in
for me. I wouldn't say the piece is momophonic. I'd say it was polyphonic
with interspered monophonic sections. An important distinction I think. And
that's true of even popular music today. Just off the top of my head, a STYX
song from the 70s called Renegade begins monophonically, "a cappella", and
then the single part becomes 3 or 4 part harmony thus is polyphonic (though
homorhythmic) and let's say "true-er" a cappella, and then the band kicks
in. But using this type of terminology to describe such a song either seems
a little overly academic or seems to detract from the spirit of the work.
Post by Margo SchulterAlso, I'd tend to regard lots of later popular and traditional songs as monophonic,
although people might devise different harmonizations or polyphonic settings.
Sure, I'll buy that. I might want to say "it's a polyphonic setting of X
monophonic tune", etc. - like Bach chorales and any of the Dies Irae
settings that pop up in Romantic composers' works!
Post by Margo SchulterPost by Steve LathamPolyphony usually applies to music when harmony and counterpoint are
evolving, though of course we'll still use "polyphonic" for things like
fugues that are probably better called "contrapuntal".
Here I'd say that "polyphony" at one level means simply two or more voices, as
with parallel organum -- but often implies rhythmic independence of the parts.
Ergo, counterpoint. I rather tend to use it in that more specific manner,
but again, you're right, broadly speaking it could just mean more than one
pitch class happening simultaneously.
Post by Margo SchulterMaybe "when harmony and counterpoint are evolving" means
"pre-major/minor,"
Yes.
Post by Margo Schulterand I'd agree that this fits usual usage (rarely do we hear of "polyphony in
Hadyn" even when he uses subtle counterpoint).
Though I do hear it used as in "polyphonic texture", for Bach, Mozart's
Jupiter 5 part invertible counterpoint, etc. I think unfortunately, the term
has come to be (at least for many of my students) synonymous with fugue. But
I much prefer "counterpoint" when dealing with independent parts. Again, in
a real braod use, and I think you're agreeing here, the term simply gets
applied as something that distinguishes monophony from things with more than
one part. But I think we do need to question if overtone chants are really
polyphony? Depends on how loosely or strictly you want to apply the term I
suppose.
Of course, because so much of
Post by Margo Schulterwhat I do is modal, the question of what major/minor contrapuntal writing should
be called doesn't come up so much for me, so I tend to take monophony and
polyphony as pretty comprehensive terms.
Major/minor should (and is to my knowledge) generally be called
contrapuntal. However, polyphonic texture is certainly used - likely to make
a connection with its ancestry. I never hear anyone say the opening of X
fugue is "a monophonic statment of the subject", but it is.
I think we're getting into semantics here with words. It's like "subject"
versus "theme". We tend to associate themes with classical period music, and
subjects with figues or other contrapuntally similar works (however, we
might of course say "Royal Theme" in A Musical Offering, it's not like the
Primary Theme of X symphony). So I tend to associate more specific meanings
with words that are generally used to refer to specific time periods -
monophony generally applying to Medieval music (generally mind you), and
polyphony generally what came after :-)
Post by Margo SchulterPost by Steve LathamPolyphony went out of style when homophony came along.
Again I might say that it seems to me the two overlap, depending, of course, on
how we define homophony. If homophony means "note-against-note" or "homorhythmic,"
This is where I was afriad of some divergence, because I've actually seen
difference definition of the homo- and hetero- terms. I always thought
homophony should be what homorhythmic is. Handel's Al-le-lu-ia (forgive the
barbarism) is homorhythmic (at least at that point). But I've always heard
that called homorhythm within a polyphonic texture, rather than homophony.
Homophony is generally "melody with accompaniment" - that is, where interest
is in one line or part - as opposed to equal insterest distrubuted amongst
the parts as in polyphony - and the remainder is supportive. It's as if (in
my experience) there's "modal homophony", which is homorhythmic polyphony,
and "tonal homophony" which is melody with accompaniment. Here's where
again, I think it's better to say "melody with accompaniment", like I might
say "contrapuntal" for Baroque/Classical etc. music, and reserve
those -phony terms for early music, or specificities within other contexts.
Post by Margo Schulterthat could apply to much of the earliest of what is called "polyphony," and also
of course to a range of medieval and Renaissance forms ranging from conductus to
cantilena or rondeaux (e.g. Adam de la Halle) to simpler fauxbourdon settings and
also 16th-century falsobordone. Such forms, of course, were used side-by-side
with more "polyphonic" (rhythmically independent) textures.
What do you call Fauxbourdon (of course, Fauxbourdon might be descriptive
enough to tell us what's going on)? I would see it as homorhythmic
polyphony, though knowing the parts are so dependent on each other, I think
terms like parallel whatever, or fauxbourdon help us to describe them better
than just polyphony (though again, simply using that word to make a
distinction between it an monophonic music could be of use).
Post by Margo SchulterPost by Steve LathamHomophony usually applies to music with a chordal accompaniment and
soloistic melody line - i.e. melody and harmony (how they got homo out of
this I've never figured out).
If "homophony" means a style with an upper melody line plus parts filling
in concords, then one could argue that the two both were practiced during
the 16th and early 17th centuries -- it's interesting to see how the
choice is made between "homorhythmic" and "homophonic." Maybe one could say
that "homorhythmic music is more likely to be called homophonic as we approach
the tonal era" (which I might place as starting around 1670 or 1680), and
conversely that "contrapuntally intricate music is less likely to be called
polyphonic as we approach the late 17th century."
Ok, I agree wholeheartedly. It seems era or period specificity comes into
play.
Post by Margo SchulterAnother common trend, I'd suspect, is to say that "homophony" starts around
1600 with the advent of the opera and oratorio, as well as solo songs in
style of Caccini, for example; this is the traditional opening of the Baroque.
That's where I hear it use "first" so to speak.
Post by Margo SchulterWhile people like Dahlhaus take this music as still modal, there is a
widespread tendency to take it as approaching major/minor, and thus sort of
thrown in with the later 17th century.
[snip]
Post by Margo SchulterAn interesting question: how about 20th-21st century music of a "post-tonal"
variety ranging from neomodalism to pantonalism: can one speak of "polyphony"
in Bartok or Schoenberg, for example? Usually I hear "20th-century counterpoint"
or the like instead, so maybe post-tonal is also usually other than "polyphonic."
This is where I think we have to reduce those terms (if we still wish to use
them outside of there era or period specific contexts) to a broader
definition (which I'd rather not do, but it's already been done). Varese's
"Density" for solo flute is Monophonic. Fugues from Ludus Tonalis -
certainly contrapuntal. Are they polyphonic in texture, sure. Sound Mass
compositions? They're not contrapuntal. They're not "polyphonic" in the may
we think of them. I'm going off here a little, but my impression is that
sound mass represents a new form of monophony! An organ produces multiple
"overtones" that we hear as a fundamental note/timbre and the "multiple
notes" become one - so single notes on an organ are monophonic despite their
being constructed of multiple "overtones" (obviously true of any instrument
with true overtones as well, but I think we take that as timbre, not
individual pitches like how an organ "builds" timbre with stops in some
cases). So when I hear a mass of sound of quarter tones (a la Pendrecki,
etc.) I don't consider them to be individual parts - it's really just a
single line - monophony! But, back to my point, if we're going to use these
terms, the definitions have to be understood to be "like" (or alluding to)
their period specific counterparts. Kind of like we use "mode" today. Mode
can mead "The Modes" (as in ecclesiatical modes, etc.), or "The seven
modes", the modern tonally based use of pre-existent non-tonal scalar
resources, or "mode" as in rotation of a set, hence modes of limited
transposition, etc. You have to know the context to understand which
definition of the word is being applied.
Post by Margo SchulterPost by Steve LathamHeterophony is a wierd one, because really it's a specialized subset.
Heterophony is a solo line accompanied by an elaborated version of itself,
which tends to be historically seen as an outgrowth of monophony, and
potentially a step towards polyphony. Thus, but for this brief (historically
speaking) period of time, heterophony has never been in style.
I'd say that heterophony is not unlikely where monophony is in style, as in
Near Eastern musics which focus on a single melodic line but might add a
drone or different elaborations by different performers. Indeed groups like
Studio for Early Music have adapted Near Eastern improvisatory techniques
and textures to their European repertories.
That's the manner in which I usually hear it applied (let's say, in music of
other cultures typically)
Post by Margo SchulterPost by Steve LathamHowever, we could certainly use these terms and apply them in modern
contexts and I'm sure you could find examples of all of them, but they are
generally associated with historical periods and are more often used with
this qualification.
This seems to me a fair statement, and my usage and orientation might actually
help prove this general rule. I'd add that for people involved with
cross-cultural topics, however, heterophony as well as polyphony seem very
common phenomena in a range of world musics -- not to mention monophony.
One line, or more than one line. That's it! Monophony and polyphony. Though
we could take examples from 20th century terminology:
Tonal, Bi-Tonal, Poly-Tonal, and Pan Tonal.
Seems like heterophony is used to fill in that space that's not quite truly
monophonic, but not quite polyphony. Alluding to the Andante versus
Andantino posts, we should have maybe used Monophonic, Monophonicino,
Polyphonicino and Polyphonic, and people could debate on where the -phonicos
fall in relation to the other two!!!
Best,
Steve