Talk:Homophony

	Homophony has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed November 26, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 11, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Music theory Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

do you know any composers in the baroque era that wrote music with homophonic texture?

J.S. Bach did so. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

But he favoured polyphony much more. In fact, I, being a baroque music fan, fail to name anyone, whose legacy was predominantly homophonic. --Dmitry Gerasimov 07:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did favor polyphony (got to love those fugues!), but he composed a number of homophonic works too (especially his chorals). Anyway, as for a Baroque composer whose works were predominantly homophonic, how about

Monteverdi? I'm not an expert on Baroque music by any means, but unless I'm mistaken, Monteverdi composed mostly homophonic pieces. -- Cielomobile ^minor7♭5 00:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way, Bach wrote 371 choral homophonic pieces, according to Grove Music Online. -- Cielomobile ^minor7♭5 00:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Monteverdi is homophonic--especially the big tutti passages in things like the 1610 Vespers, and some of the passages in the madrigals, but it's quite oversimplifying the matter to list him as a "homophonic" composer. Much of his music is polyphonic: it is homophonic in places. The same is true of Tallis, with the exception of some of the Anglican church music he wrote, which is mostly homophonic. It's really misleading to list "homophonic" composers. Caccini is another misleading example: monody is another animal altogether, with a predominant upper and lower part. Antandrus (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Perhaps I should make a section about homophonic pieces instead of composers, since they are much more easily categorizable? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: a section with examples of predominantly homophonic pieces, or sections of pieces, say from different musical eras, could be useful (for instance: a well-known chorale by Bach; Chopin, that c-minor prelude op. 28 no. 20 (?); one of those Tallis pieces; the "B" section of the Great Gate of Kiev, from Pictures at an Exhibition, Mussorgsky; the "chorale" from the second movement of the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra; .... it's fun to think of examples) Antandrus (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that a minority of music has the same texture throughout. What was said about Monteverdi not being a strictly homophonic composer could also be said of Beethoven. In the end, it's more useful to identify relevant passages than to sort composers into broad categories that likely won't hold up.Woodowl1234 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article overlaps with homophony and could simply be added as its own section to homophony. If no one protests, I'll do so. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've already included a section for melody dominated homophony in this article, so I'll redirect the other page soon unless there are objections. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say go for it: it fits well here, and reduces duplication. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it is done, melody dominated homophony now redirects to homophony. Thanks for the input. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta warn ya, this probably won't pass, the only reference seems to require either a subscription to a service or a "free trial", and that's not exactly a high-class reference. Course, there's only one anyway, so that's a big problem. I won't review it because its new on the list, but still, I recommend you take it off and work on the article some more. Homestarmy 00:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Grove Music Encyclopedia is the premier music encyclopedia in the world. It is certainly a "high-class" reference. The highest class of references generally require a subscription to view, unfortunately. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputable statements

The article claims that homophony dates back to the XVIth century, which is apparently not true, as it was quite well known in mediaeval times and perhaps even earlier. It was in the XVIth century however, that homophony started to attain its dominant position in the European musical culture. --Dmitry Gerasimov 07:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I misworded that statement. What I should've written is that it appeared as the predominant texture in Western music in the 17th century. I'll change that, thanks for your input. -- Cielomobile ^minor7♭5 01:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that a homophonic texture is also homorhythmic. Whilst the addition of (or uses a "very similar rhythm") does clear up some confusion, the vast majority of homophonic music is not homorhythmic. Homorhythm is a special case of homophony. Petrusg (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of 7 October 2006, I'm making a speedy failing for

If you would like to verify the source yourself, I will gladly let you use my San Francisco Public Library card and view the article from Grove Music. -- Cielomobile ^minor7♭5 05:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's even a page on Wikipedia for

citing Grove Online. It is without a doubt a legitimate source. -- Cielomobile ^minor7♭5 05:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for leaving me a note. Certainly, a source can be offline, that is a printed source. With an offline source, it is no doubt that anybody can read it. I checked

WP:WIAGA, but let this article be reviewed normally. My apologies. — Indon (reply) — 07:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. May I ask what the other problems according to

WP:WIAGA are, so I can improve the article? -- Cielomobile ^minor7♭5 17:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• I think this is where limiting yourself to one source (no matter how good of a source it is) is a negative. One source only gives you one particular view of a subject. Now, admittedly, I am not a musical scholar but I did come across some of these elements in my time studying liturgical hymns. (Protestant hymns are very homophonic for a purpose) I want to help as best I can in steering you in the right direction so I will comment on a few areas that seem under represented to the best of my knowledge.
  • I have added two Wikibooks as sources, and I'll make a trip to the library to get some more. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• In the History section, there is no comment mention of Homophony in medieval Latin musical theory or rather the development of an early homophonic style which seems to be a precursor of what we today consider Homophony. I can't recall the exact phrase, (contrapuntal?) but there was definitely a historical point in medieval times when there was a move away from the polyphonic texture. The current history section starts with the Baroque period.
  • I have included a small section on pre-Baroque history, but most notated music before the Baroque truly wasn't homophonic. Unfortunately, manuscript was expensive, so most music was not notated. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What composers were notable for their use of homophonic textures? like Scarlatti? Brixi? Pachelbel?
  • I have included a few composers whose music is often homophonic, but I am not sure how extensive you'd want this list to be. There and hundreds of such composers, and listing too many would be a little too much. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Where is mention of Charles Burney's work? It would be useful in connecting the composers that would be listed above with the significances of their use of homophony.
  • I'm not quite sure to what you're referring here. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Outside of the See Also mention, there is not anything said about the rules of counterpoint that is characteristic for homophonic textures to normally follow.
  • Counterpoint is essentially a synonym for polyphony. The distinction between the two is that counterpoint is a compositional technique in which all parts move with independence from each other, so the parts are heard horizontally rather than vertically (if the parts were looked at vertically, the chords formed would be heard, as in homophony). So unless you have something else in mind, I don't see a need to include it within the article. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a sort of sweeping mention of the music between the 17th and 20th century but I think you can go more into the homophonic elements that were characteristics of early Jazz.
  • I will go into more detail about homophony in popular music. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What about ethnic music? Is it or has it been used differently in Western Music then it has in other parts of the world?
  • I'll try to find some sources about homophony in non-Western music. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Does one style of music lend itself more to the use of homophonic texture then others?
• What about the rich liturgical history of homophonic styles?
• While not needed for GA consideration, a wonderful addition would be to have some audio samples attached to the article.
  • I have added a sample from Tallis' "If ye love me," and I also added an example from popular music, but it sort of crowded the page. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass

• The article is technical in style and clearly follows a NPOV about its subject.

5. It is stable - Pass

• The article has progressed gracefully from its creation with no current edit wars.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

• The article does an excellent job of incorporating images to help visualize the concepts.

I want to thank the article's editors for all their hard work and dedication that put into this article. It has a lot of good merit and serves as a good base for expansion more into the kind of areas I mentioned above. I encourage you to seek renomination once the coverage concerns have been addressed. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 09:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you input, Agne. I will work to get more sources and expand the article per your suggestions and renominate it once I feel it has been sufficiently improved. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 15:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note that you don't actually need a subscription to view the Grove source; most public libraries of medium to large-sized cities allow online access to the database with a library card. You can view it through the San Francisco Public Library if you have a library card, which all California residents can obtain for free, and all non-California residents (including foreign nationals) can obtain for a miniscule fee. Of course, other libraries tend to have similar systems. I will still try to find other sources, though. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 15:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is hard to recount the history of homophony before the Baroque peiod, seeing as notation only surfaced really towards the end of the Medieval period, and most notated music was sacred and monophonic. I did add a small snippit about pre-Baroque homophony, but like I said, there's not much to go on. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to drop a note that I kept this article on my watchlist and I have been duly impressed with the quick improvements the article has already made in such a short time. My kudos to the editors here. Keep up the good work and I'm sure we'll see the article on the GA list in the near future. Agne 00:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What particular sections of Wikibooks:IB Music/Music History/Medieval Period where used as a source? Hyacinth 21:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gregorian Chant section was used to support the statement that most Medieval music is monophonic, and the Secular Music section was used to support the statement that Medieval dance music was often homophonic ("Unlike sacred music, secular music had a more clearly defined beat and its texture was closer to homophony or polyphony."). However, it is not very good support (and not a great source either), so if you can find better sources for these statements, please do. One of the reasons I know that the Estampie can be homophonic is because I have a recording of one, and it is most definitely homophonic (it uses a harpsichord for accompaniment). I know this borders on

WP:NOR, but I'm sure the statement can be supported by a number of sources. I probably won't be able to get to the library until next weekend, so until then, that's the best I could do. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

This "source" is one of the worst that I ever saw. Almost every word it says about medieval music is nonsense. Here are a few examples:

• "Sacred music evolved from a form called the Gregorian chant." (A form???)
• "A cantor begins the piece with an introductory solo, called an incipit."
• "All gregorian chant was passed down orally, as the use of sheet music was very uncommon."
• "Church modes use 7 tones and the eighth tone duplicates the tonic an octave higher." (It took me some time to realize that "tone" meant "degree", and that was is called "the tonic" probably is the first degree.)
• "Between the lines they are intervals of fourths and fifths that move in contrary motion." (Intervals that move?)
• "Early organs are not like modern organs; though they were loud, they were much more difficult to operate and required a great deal of physical strength."
• "Unlike sacred music, secular music had a more clearly defined beat" (but jazz did not yet exist)
• "Much secular music during the Medieval Period was written by troubadours and troubavères." (sic)

I removed all mentions in "Homophony" refering to this source.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that all three images in this article be displayed larger and centered. Currently they aren't readable on my monitor. In the meantime I have increased the size of the last two images by 25px, which makes the Chopin visible. Hyacinth 22:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. I figured people would just click the thumbnails to see the larger view, but I suppose it's better if they can be seen without doing so. I'll increase their size a little more even. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the music sample the music notated above in the image? If so they should reference each other through "hear music sample below" and "see notation above", if not that should be clarified. Hyacinth 22:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the same piece, so I'll make those changes. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tenor voice in the notation is all wrong after the first bar. I don't have access to a notation programme, so I can't fix it. Unless somebody corrects this, it should be deleted. Devanatha 17:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is taken directly from Grove Online, so I would trust it. I did listen to the sample, and it doesn't seem to match the notation, but I would suspect that this is not because the notation is incorrect, but because the performer took liberties with the singing. I am making a minor change to the caption, but it is not grounds for removal of the image, seeing as both versions demonstrate homophony. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The singers do it just right, the tenor voice really is erroneous. Added sixths for six consecutive chords, “resolved” in an added fourth in a major chord (ouch!) is a more than a little too outré for 16th century music. You will see that the tenor voice from 2:1—4:2 is just the bass voice superimposed on the tenor staff without compensating for the change of clef, resulting in such odd harmonies. The tenor and bass voices are also one octave too low. I'm replacing the faulty notation with a correct one, taken from http://www.mutopiaproject.org, in the original key of F major. Devanatha 13:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thank you for your help. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the history section to include non-western music and added a sentence on jazz and such, but as per the GA reviewer's request, we still need to include more on the liturgical history of homophony. Also to do is changing the homophonic composers list to homophonic pieces, but that shouldn't take too much effort. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last major missing piece is discant organum. There also needs to be something about how the baroque period was the first time composers starting writing music based on vertical harmony and thinking about chords. There also needs to be some reference to monody and how it relates to homophony. – flamurai (t) 22:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a phrase to explicitly say that Baroque composers began to write music vertically, and I added a reference to monody in the melody dominated homophony section, but admittedly, I don't know a lot about discant organum (only that it is a form of organum in which one voice is removed from the others, similar to melody dominated homophony). Perhaps you could lead me to a source about it, or add a little about it yourself? I have tried Grove and (of course) Wikipedia, but I found them wanting. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thank you for passing the article as a GA. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I should be able to find something in Grout/Palisca. I think the article definitely falls between broad (GA) and comprehensive (FA). – flamurai (t) 18:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the FAC page:

"You haven't dealt with the problem that "vertical harmony" had been inherent ever since polyphony developed in the 12th/13th centuries. And the non-expert will wonder about the relevance of the "basso continuo" bit in relation to homphony. It probably needs to be dealt with further down, when you can explain it in the necessary detail and even show notated examples of its realisation. You might also provide an example of recitative, a quintessential form of homophony in the Baroque (since the isolated chords are "prolonged" through the single-line recitations). I still don't see the relevance of SATB right here; it complicates matters, since SATB can be polyphonic too. Why introduce it? Again, it hearks back to harmony textbooks, I fear." -- Tony

As I understand it, vertical harmony is a byproduct of multiple voices in polyphony, at best. When you listen to a polyphonic piece, you typically don't hear the harmonys—each melodic line is heard seperately. While these harmonies may have technically existed, you neither hear them nor look for them when analyzing the music. If you listen to a 16th century madrigal, for example, you would hear each voice individually, would you not?

Although I have no expert qualifications (admittedly, I'm only a higher level IB Music student), I am fairly confident that this is true, seeing as I have learned this from an expert, verefied it with outside sources and observed it myself. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up and condensed a lot of the changes made by User:Meladina in attempt to polish the article, as some of the definitions added were repetitive, in my opinion. I'm also removing the external links section, because I feel that they are irrelevant and it does not fit Wikipedia to house them. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Is there any good reason why this is article is not located at "homophony", since it redirects here? Can we move it there?

I agree; it should simply be at

WP:RM (it would be an uncontroversial move). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Chubbles 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I went ahead and completed the move as uncontroversial. We've only got one article called "Homophony", so there's no need for disambiguation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]