Musical textures

[jochanaan]

We've been talking about musical textures such as monody, polyphony, etc., on another thread, and it has become apparent to me that we need to define terms.  Here, then, are some possible musical textures (I say some because it is always possible for some musical genius to come up with something completely different ): 

Monophony:  A single melodic line, played either by one instrument or many.  This is more common than you might think; Classical-period composers were fond of inserting unison phrases into their compositions.  Near the end of the first movement of Bach's Second Brandenburg Concerto, there are a couple of measures where the entire orchestra, including the trumpet and harpsichord, play in unison; that's a bit of monophony.  Another such passage, eight measures' worth, is in Bruckner's Seventh Symphony's finale.

Homophony:  Two or more melodic lines playing the same rhythm.  Hymns and chorales are mostly homophonic, and there are many homophonic passages in other music, such as the chorale sections in the Bruckner symphonies.

Polyphony:  Two or more melodic lines of about the same prominence with differing rhythms.  As I've said before, this is not limited to fugues, canons and other imitative counterpoint; many Romantic composers were also contrapuntal masters.

Monody:  Two or more melodic lines, one of which clearly dominates.

Heterophony:  Two or more melodic lines, sometimes accompanied by others, one of which is a variation of the other.  This is more common in "world musics" than in Euro-American classical music, but again, you see more of it in "our" music than you might think.  Beethoven seemed especially fond of it.  The Violin Concerto is full of such passages, in which the violin embroiders a theme that is also played by the orchestra.  The most masterful example I know is in the Adagio from Beethoven's Ninth, toward the end; the high woodwinds sing the original theme while the first violins play a florid variation of it.

Polyrhythm:  Beyond mere polyphony, involving two rhythms that conflict with each other, or seem to.  Berlioz, well before the 20th century, was fond of polyrhythms; just listen to the Roman Carnival overture.  Even Mozart used it at least once, in the Oboe Quartet, K. 370; the last movement contains a section in 2/2 for the oboe while the three strings continue to play in 6/8!

Polythematic texture:  Again beyond polyphony in the sense that each melodic line is a theme in its own right.  That famous passage near the end of the Meistersinger prelude is polythematic.

Polytonality:  Two clear "keys" are played at the same time and neither dominates the other.

And I suppose I should include onomatopoeia (sometimes spelled "onomatopeia"), the imitation of natural sounds.  Again, you hear more of this in classical music than you might imagine; all those bird calls, thunderclaps and shivers in Vivaldi's The Seasons are onomatopoeic.

It's easy to see that a musical passage may be many things at once.  At the end of Bruckner's Fifth Symphony the brass play a chorale theme, homophonically; at the same time the low strings are playing a completely different theme in octaves (monophony!) while the upper strings and woodwinds embroider the harmony, giving a touch of monody since they are clearly subservient to the brass and low strings.  Obviously you can't assign just one texture to this passage!

One very fascinating composition, texture-wise, is Charles Ives' Country Band March.  Towards its end, five or six totally different march-tunes are played at the same time, none of them clearly predominant, creating a texture that is polyphonic, polythematic, polyrhythmic and polytonal all at once.  (It takes a fearless band to pull this off! )  Ives was very fond of piling wildly conflicting musical ideas on top of each other to create something distinctly itself.

[Bonehelm]

Very interesting and educative, jochanaan. One question though: could you please explain, when people say the "chorales" in Bruckner, what do they mean? How do I spot them? I know about brass "fanfares"...but not the former...

[Montpellier]

I'm not too sure about some of those definitions.  

The one that stood out most was polyphony which, thinking back to student days, was the simultaneous sounding of two or more voices, each standing independently as a melody.  It is contrapuntal (though not all counterpoint is polyphony).

Homophony: "Two or more melodic lines playing the same rhythm" ?  Not really - two or more parts sounding together - the lines don't have to be melodic though one usually is.  (So it follows that homophony is one texture available to polyphony writers.)   And by rhythm do you mean the same metre? the same tempo with the same accents?

Monody seems to be a single melodic line ususally (but not always) accompanied by another instrument, or continuo.

[Ten thumbs]

jochanaan's definitions are at least reasonably comprehensive whereas the classical ones leave music that falls between. My original query related to lieder in which there is an interplay between two voices with differing rhythms and prominence is constantly shifting. The same kind of thing often happens in concertos between the soloist and the orchestra.

[jochanaan]

Very interesting and educative, jochanaan. One question though: could you please explain, when people say the "chorales" in Bruckner, what do they mean? How do I spot them? I know about brass "fanfares"...but not the former...

Thanks!  The word chorale refers to the kind of hymn tunes that were (and are) commonly sung in Lutheran churches, that J.S. Bach and others inserted into cantatas written for church performance.  Now, Bruckner was a Catholic, but he knew a good musical device when he heard one, and so there are many passages in his symphonies that have the same effect: a brief passage of homophony or near-homophony, often but not always for brass, inserted into a many-textured movement, creating a point of rest and familiarity much like the old hymns in Bach's cantatas.

Homophony: "Two or more melodic lines playing the same rhythm" ?  Not really - two or more parts sounding together - the lines don't have to be melodic though one usually is.  (So it follows that homophony is one texture available to polyphony writers.)

Perhaps melodic was not quite the word to use there, but it seemed the clearest one.  Musical lines might be better, or it might not.  I was using the word melodic in a broader sense, not necessarily meaning that each voice had equal melodic interest.

And by rhythm do you mean the same metre? the same tempo with the same accents?

I mean that and more: Every voice has exactly the same rhythmic values; "unison rhythm" as it were.  What one voice does, rhythmically, they all do.

Monody seems to be a single melodic line ususally (but not always) accompanied by another instrument, or continuo.

That's one form of monody.  You also find monody in a symphony, for example where the first violins and cellos have a soaring melody over a simple harmonic accompaniment from the woodwinds and horns.

jochanaan's definitions are at least reasonably comprehensive whereas the classical ones leave music that falls between. My original query related to lieder in which there is an interplay between two voices with differing rhythms and prominence is constantly shifting. The same kind of thing often happens in concertos between the soloist and the orchestra.

That, of course, may describe polyphony; or it might describe monody in which the principal voice moves from soloist to "accompanying" instruments and back again.  I often feel that the best lieder and concertos, such as the Schubert songs and the Beethoven concertos, are like conversations between the soloist and the piano or orchestra; not contrapuntal or polyphonic in the strict sense, but nonetheless a give-and-take in which "soloist" and "accompaniment" are equal partners.

[bwv 1080]

Some writers have also described a "pointalistic" texture to describe the music of postwar serialism such as Boulez's Structures

[greg]

Polythematic texture:  Again beyond polyphony in the sense that each melodic line is a theme in its own right.  That famous passage near the end of the Meistersinger prelude is polythematic.

And Prokofiev did this from time to time, too. It's basically counterpoint, except using themes that contrast so much that it isn't typical counterpoint. They usually are exposed from different sections. What I'm thinking is the slow movement from the 4th sonata, when near the end he plays an accompaniment figure mixed with 2 themes: the opening theme and a second them he plays in the same movement. It really is interesting when he brings two themes together like that, it's like one of his little trademark gestures.

And I suppose I should include onomatopoeia (sometimes spelled "onomatopeia"), the imitation of natural sounds.  Again, you hear more of this in classical music than you might imagine; all those bird calls, thunderclaps and shivers in Vivaldi's The Seasons are onomatopoeic.

really? i've never heard this term used before. So you'd say Messiaen's bird calls, too, right?

[jochanaan]

...really? i've never heard this term used before. So you'd say Messiaen's bird calls, too, right?

Yes, of course--a wonderful example.

[Ten thumbs]

Copland's somewhat dated analysis resolves none of the problems that have been discussed. This suggests there is room here for someone academically minded to make a name for themselves with a more comprehensive paper on the subject. One suggestion is that, as we have bitonality, there could also be biphonality in which two melodic threads compete with each other. This was very common in the nineteenth century. I note that von Westerman refers to Wagner's textures as polyphonic.

[Bonehelm]

CHINESE MUSIC = MONOPHONY?

Wow, I wonder how much this American knows about Chinese music.

[Greta]

One very fascinating composition, texture-wise, is Charles Ives' Country Band March.  Towards its end, five or six totally different march-tunes are played at the same time, none of them clearly predominant, creating a texture that is polyphonic, polythematic, polyrhythmic and polytonal all at once.  (It takes a fearless band to pull this off! Shocked)

We did!! Our college wind ensemble played this at a big concert at the Texas Music Educators Convention, got a nice recording too. THe audience loved the piece! (Thank goodness, but then it was mostly musicians!) It is really tough to bring off because each snippet of a theme he throws out has to be audible, he wrote musical chaos but it takes a lot of detail to have the chaos be...distinct chaos.  Our director was somewhat of an Ives scholar (and fearless!), we played a lot of Ives and we learned a lot about his life. Ives is even more fun to rehearse, our director always pulled out each theme in different sections and told us what it was from and the significance of it being there, fascinating to work on.

[Ten thumbs]

Ill take Copland's word about this subject over your own, no offence. Its not really an analysis....nor is it outdated, it pretty much covers the jist of it very succinctly..."biphonality" seems like another meaningless term that is truly polyphony by the sounds of it...

Very well. This means that music in the Romantic period is predominently polyphonic, which is what I was arguing in the first place.

[Ten thumbs]

I don't accept nonsense from anyone. The main ethos in Romantic music is the conflict between two or more usually differing and contrasting melodic threads, as I described. I play a large amount of Romantic piano music and this style is prevalent. It is not like polyphony in the traditional sense, as each melody may include harmonic elements but it in no way fits the definition of homophony either in that harmony is subservient to the demands of the melodies. It was this independence of line that led to the overthrow of classical harmony via Wagner, Listz and others.

[jochanaan]

...One suggestion is that, as we have bitonality, there could also be biphonality in which two melodic threads compete with each other...

That's polythematic texture, covered in my original post.

well its own stubborn and thick head then to refuse to except fact and truth, copland does not speak nonsense, what an idiotic notion...there was a great deal of harmonic exploration in the romantic era (though it could be argued that a great deal of it was already used up in the Baroque era as well! another discussion really...), however most of this was homophonic in texture.

Homophonic?  How?  It certainly wasn't all chorale-like. I grant, though, that much of it was monodic, and that the successive themes, while highly contrasting, are often not played simultaneously and thus do not qualify as polyphonic or polythematic...

[Ten thumbs]

From a practical point of view, I have done some composing in a Romantic style and the idea of having a melody with a harmony based background never ever crossed my mind. Certainly if you play Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven in general you know the basis is homophonic but if you then turn to something like Schumann's Humoreske you can tell at once that the texture is quite different.
The idea that there are just three textures was formulated a long, long time ago and much has changed since then. It is such a shame that dinosaurs still walk the Earth.

[Larry Rinkel]

From a practical point of view, I have done some composing in a Romantic style and the idea of having a melody with a harmony based background never ever crossed my mind. Certainly if you play Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven in general you know the basis is homophonic but if you then turn to something like Schumann's Humoreske you can tell at once that the texture is quite different.

The Humoreske is a big piece and I don't know which parts of it you are primarily considering. But if I turn to the opening page, what I see is essentially homophonic, and not at all "a conflict between two or more usually differing and contrasting melodic threads." Schumann simply arpeggiates the inner voices to maintain the rhythmic flow and provide the illusion of contrapuntal independence, but essentially what we have here is a 4-part chorale:

[Ten thumbs]

In the relatively simple opening, Schumann arpeggiated the inner voices to assist the listener in distinguishing the various melodic lines he intends to explore. It is important that all these are heard and listened to. This arpeggiation lies within a treble/bass duet. If you intend to drastically redefine homophony to include multiple melodic lines, I may be able to agree with you. However, this does not fit with what I was taught forty years ago. I chose Humoreske deliberately because in the second section ('Hastig') the composer specifically writes out the 'Innere Stimmung' that comprises the second melody that one should strive to hear. His music is full of such hidden voices.
Another famous example of duality, is Gounod's Ave Maria. Bach's C major prelude is a piece of music in its own right. Adding a vocal line above it does not reduce it to mere harmonic accompaniment. The listener should be paying attention to both.

[jochanaan]

...But if I turn to the opening page, what I see is essentially homophonic...

Uh, Larry, isn't that monodic rather than homophonic?   Certainly not all the parts are playing the same rhythm...

[Larry Rinkel]

Uh, Larry, isn't that monodic rather than homophonic?   Certainly not all the parts are playing the same rhythm...

No, of course they're not. I didn't claim that. But they aren't truly independent melodic lines, and in my quotation above, even the bass line is of no melodic interest. I don't see Schumann's inner voices here as being any more independent, melodically or rhythmically, than a Mozartean Alberti bass. (And in places Schumann's voice leading is a bit dubious.) As was quoted above, homophony "consists of a principle melodic line and a chordal accompaniment. It wasn't very long before these simple chords were broken up, or figurated, as it is called. . . . Nothing essentially changed by figurating or turning these chords into flowing arpeggios."

[Ten thumbs]

But they aren't truly independent melodic lines, and in my quotation above, even the bass line is of no melodic interest. I don't see Schumann's inner voices here as being any more independent, melodically or rhythmically, than a Mozartean Alberti bass. (And in places Schumann's voice leading is a bit dubious.) As was quoted above, homophony "consists of a principle melodic line and a chordal accompaniment. It wasn't very long before these simple chords were broken up, or figurated, as it is called. . . . Nothing essentially changed by figurating or turning these chords into flowing arpeggios."

Here lies the fundamental fallacy in your argument. For one thing you are wrong about the bass line and should examine the score more closely. There is no strong melody in this opening section and it is necessary to listen to all the notes to understand it. Composers began to realise that the figured chords and arpeggios had much more potential and could be turned into melodic lines in their own right. If you don't think an arpeggio can be thematic you have never listened to Beethoven's Sonata Op2. 1. Moreover the introduction of chromatic elements from the study of Bach allowed wider and wider deviation from the 'simple chords' that had once been. The point is that the listener is intended to listen to these added parts and this being so the music does not satisfy the definition of homophony.