Musical textures

[Larry Rinkel]

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.

I've been playing Beethoven's Op. 2/1 since I was 13. The arpeggiation in the opening theme is in the soprano voice. We are talking here about arpeggiation of the inner voices. You really are all thumbs, aren't you?

[Ten thumbs]

I've been playing Beethoven's Op. 2/1 since I was 13. The arpeggiation in the opening theme is in the soprano voice. We are talking here about arpeggiation of the inner voices. You really are all thumbs, aren't you?

You have obviously missed the point. If that theme or one like it were put into the bass or a middle voice below another theme it would not suddenly become a 'flowing arpeggiated accompaniment', even though it is basically an arpeggio.
I am only repeating what I learned from text books and I wonder whether or not you have involved yourself in the creative process. If you begin with, say, Mendelssohn's 'Songs without Words' you will certainly find some homophonic music but even he begins to move away from it. There are some on this board who have declared that they cannot get into Romantic music and I'm beginning to see why.
If on hearing in the first bar the motif: G Bb Eb G D Eb Bb you think 'Ah, a decorated arpeggio' you have probably lost the plot already and when, in the 14th bar you are faced with the following transformation, I dare say you'll rather listen to something else:
           e1   b1? c1? a1?c1   b1b  a1  g
           Bb   E     G    bb   c?  G     bb  C?
The point being that handling of that motif is all important throughout and it is in no way mere accompaniment.

[Larry Rinkel]

You have obviously missed the point. If that theme or one like it were put into the bass or a middle voice below another theme it would not suddenly become a 'flowing arpeggiated accompaniment', even though it is basically an arpeggio.
I am only repeating what I learned from text books and I wonder whether or not you have involved yourself in the creative process. If you begin with, say, Mendelssohn's 'Songs without Words' you will certainly find some homophonic music but even he begins to move away from it. There are some on this board who have declared that they cannot get into Romantic music and I'm beginning to see why.
If on hearing in the first bar the motif: G Bb Eb G D Eb Bb you think 'Ah, a decorated arpeggio' you have probably lost the plot already and when, in the 14th bar you are faced with the following transformation, I dare say you'll rather listen to something else:
           e1   b1? c1? a1?c1   b1b  a1  g
           Bb   E     G    bb   c?  G     bb  C?
The point being that handling of that motif is all important throughout and it is in no way mere accompaniment.

I love Romantic music including Schumann and I had ambitions to be a composer since age 11, afterwards being accepted as a composition major at the Oberlin Conservatory of Music, class of 1970. That is besides the point. My point is that the initial passage I quoted, despite the use of 8th notes to represent the inner voices, is not truly polyphonic at this point because none of the voices is truly melodically or rhythmically independent; all are subordinate to the soprano. This could be easily represented by writing out the music as a chorale. After the first 8 bars, at the shift to Gb, then you can legitimately speak of a polyphonic relationship between the soprano and bass. Yet again the middle voices are filling out the rhythm and harmony, and have no independent melodic interest.

At this point you either don't understand me or I don't understand you (or both), and I'll leave it to other interested parties to resolve the matter.

[Bonehelm]

I love Romantic music including Schumann and I had ambitions to be a composer since age 11, afterwards being accepted as a composition major at the Oberlin Conservatory of Music, class of 1970. That is besides the point. My point is that the initial passage I quoted, despite the use of 8th notes to represent the inner voices, is not truly polyphonic at this point because none of the voices is truly melodically or rhythmically independent; all are subordinate to the soprano. This could be easily represented by writing out the music as a chorale. After the first 8 bars, at the shift to Gb, then you can legitimately speak of a polyphonic relationship between the soprano and bass. Yet again the middle voices are filling out the rhythm and harmony, and have no independent melodic interest.

At this point you either don't understand me or I don't understand you (or both), and I'll leave it to other interested parties to resolve the matter.

Wow, look! a composition maaaaaaaaaaaaajor!  so impressed

/sarcasmtagfortheilliterateandblind

[Larry Rinkel]

Wow, look! a composition maaaaaaaaaaaaajor!  so impressed

/sarcasmtagfortheilliterateandblind

What's with you? so what was your maaaaaaajor?

[Bonehelm]

What's with you? so what was your maaaaaaajor?

I was just teasing you, sorry if I offeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeended you. 

[greg]

oh noooooooooooo
i just laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaughed

i have no idea whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

i can't stooooooooooooooop

typing liiiiiiiiiiiiikkkkkkeeeeeeeee thhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissssssssss


aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Larry Rinkel]

oh noooooooooooo
i just laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaughed

i have no idea whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

i can't stooooooooooooooop

typing liiiiiiiiiiiiikkkkkkeeeeeeeee thhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissssssssss


aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Take a valium.

[jochanaan]

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."

Larry, my respected musical colleague, I was not arguing with your analysis; merely your terminology, or my understanding of it.  Unless your definition of homophonic and monodic is different than mine, the passage you quoted should be called monodic and not homophonic, since not all the parts are playing the same rhythm but the top voice is pretty clearly predominant.

[Bonehelm]

Larry, my respected musical colleague, I was not arguing with your analysis; merely your terminology, or my understanding of it.  Unless your definition of homophonic and monodic is different than mine, the passage you quoted should be called monodic and not homophonic, since not all the parts are playing the same rhythm but the top voice is pretty clearly predominant.

I agree with jochanaan on the top voice being predominant. 

[Larry Rinkel]

Larry, my respected musical colleague, I was not arguing with your analysis; merely your terminology, or my understanding of it.  Unless your definition of homophonic and monodic is different than mine, the passage you quoted should be called monodic and not homophonic, since not all the parts are playing the same rhythm but the top voice is pretty clearly predominant.

Fine. I'll take it. But recall, please, that our esteemed friend Ten Thumbs, who "takes nonsense from no one," has told us, "Very well. This means that music in the Romantic period is predominently polyphonic, which is what I was arguing in the first place," and (unless I have misunderstood) treats this Schumann piece as polyphonic as well.

I tend to think the available vocabulary of texture is too limited, and probably often inaccurate as well.

[Ten thumbs]

No, actually, I do not think Romantic music is mostly polyphonic. It was Harry who put it that way when I described its texture. For one thing it is basically interval based rather than linear. My only purpose is to assist music lovers to appreciate that this non-polyphonic music has much more to listen to in it that a tune. In fact the sometimes complex counter melodies and undercurrents can be just as intellectually challenging as a Bach fugue. Maybe the real problem is that the definition given of homophony is plain wrong.
Schumann's Humoreske is not polyphonic but is effectively consistent in texture throughout, even when there is counterpoint. It seems to me a cheap trick to flatten everything out into a series of chords and then announce that there is nothing of interest. For one thing in this texture of music a rising fourth is very different from a falling one. To a creative mind that opening section should be pregnant with a host of possibilities.
I am pleased at Larry's compositional ability and wonder if he is equally pleased when all the hard work he has put into a composition is wasted because all the audience can think to do is whistle his tune and ignore its setting.

[Ten thumbs]

No doubt you think me crazy or too big for my boots but I do like to think round things that bother me. I only asked for a suitable epithet for the texture of music I described, i.e. one with a focus on melodic lines (in the plural) within a harmony based setting. I have now thought of one that satisfies me, compound homophony. With that I too will sign off.

[jochanaan]

...I tend to think the available vocabulary of texture is too limited, and probably often inaccurate as well.

Oh, I agree completely!  The list I gave in my OP doesn't even begin to deal with mixed textures or some of the textures in 20th- and 21st-century music.  That's the nature of lists and terminology; they're never sufficient or even completely accurate.

[bwv 1080]

Going beyond simple taxonomy,  if you look at real music it is apparent that not only is texture on a continuum, changes in texture are as important a compositional and stylistic device as changes in harmony or melody.  For example, the slowing of the harmonic rate of change and increase of textural contrasts is the primary dividing line between baroque and classical styles.   The Romantic period reversed this - texture tends to be more uniform but with a faster harmonic rhythm.  The 20th century, with Ligeti and Xenakis saw texture brought out as a primary compositional determinant.

[jochanaan]

...The Romantic period reversed this - texture tends to be more uniform but with a faster harmonic rhythm...

That's not what I see in Romantic music.  Yes, in some of the smaller forms textures became more uniformly monodic; but in the larger forms, opera, symphonies, extended chamber music and the like, the contrasts became more extreme.

[zamyrabyrd]

I always thought that Romantic music on the whole was homophonic. And I think that the clue is the -phonic part, sound, rather than rhythm. Reducing the harmony to chords as in the example quoted is a case in point. You can sing a chorale in parts or sing the upper voice and harmonize the rest. No one would say that the subservient voices (though could be lower ones, as well) can stand alone.

A melody by itself can actually imply harmony but this has little to do with the rhythm. Monody to me is more Gregorian chant or music that is not so amenable to harmonization (although some try to add chords to Middle Eastern melodies, but usually disastrously).

The example of the Humoresque is typical of Romantic music (Chopin nocturnes, Schubert songs) in which the harmony is subservient to the melody even though it can grow out of the harmony as it were. Even shifting around voices like what Handel does in the Messiah is not necessarily polyphonic except when he writes a real fugue.

Dramatic contrast in the Romantic period had to do with sections. I don't see how that would change individual textures of each section.

Anyway to sum up: whatever-phonic has to do with pitch and not rhythm (at least according to my understanding). And whatever-rhythmic has to do with rhythm and not necessarily pitch.

The possible combinations of the above are practically unlimited.

ZB

[MishaK]

I always thought that Romantic music on the whole was homophonic. And I think that the clue is the -phonic part, sound, rather than rhythm. Reducing the harmony to chords as in the example quoted is a case in point. You can sing a chorale in parts or sing the upper voice and harmonize the rest. No one would say that the subservient voices (though could be lower ones, as well) can stand alone.

Huh? This is news to me. I think this is way too overgeneralized. Look at the major German romantic symphonists (Brahms and Bruckner in particular) and you can no longer really speak of a homophonic environment. Even late Beethoven can hardly be compared to a simple Humoresque (which I really wouldn't dream of considering the archetype of Romantic music) where there is a clear distinction between "melody" and "accompaniment". Sure, in anything deriving from folk song, that distinction exists - and by extension in much of opera (Freischütz is a great example) or operatic writing (such as Paganini's violin concertos, which have an obvious solo melody and some of the stupidest orchestral accompaniment ever written). But how you can define something like the final scene of Götterdämmerung or the finale of Bruckner's 5th as homophonic is beyond me. Even late Beethoven defies that categorization (e.g. in many parts of the finale of the 9th there is no clear distinction at all among leading and subservient voices - the attempt to so distinguish indeed obscures much of LvB's point there). Or at the tail end of Romanticism, take Strauss's Metamorphosen or Janacek's Sinfonietta. How does that fit your definition? I don't think you can ever define an entire period or artistic movement as any sort of -phonic. That very much depends on the piece in question.

[bwv 1080]

Charles Rosen said that Gounod's Ave Maria is the prototypical Romantic piece - a post-classical melody superimposed over Baroque figuration.  With any quality music the details are much more relevant than generalizations based upon labels.  Chopin's music is officially homophonic I suppose, but the other voices - which are certainly subordinate to a main melodic line - are extremely contrapuntal and exquisitely crafted.  Rosen again claimed Chopin had a facility in writing counterpoint equal to that of Mozart - even though he wrote no officially contrapuntal music. 

[zamyrabyrd]

Huh? This is news to me. I think this is way too overgeneralized. Look at the major German romantic symphonists (Brahms and Bruckner in particular) and you can no longer really speak of a homophonic environment. Even late Beethoven can hardly be compared to a simple Humoresque (which I really wouldn't dream of considering the archetype of Romantic music) where there is a clear distinction between "melody" and "accompaniment". Sure, in anything deriving from folk song, that distinction exists - and by extension in much of opera (Freischütz is a great example) or operatic writing (such as Paganini's violin concertos, which have an obvious solo melody and some of the stupidest orchestral accompaniment ever written). But how you can define something like the final scene of Götterdämmerung or the finale of Bruckner's 5th as homophonic is beyond me. Even late Beethoven defies that categorization (e.g. in many parts of the finale of the 9th there is no clear distinction at all among leading and subservient voices - the attempt to so distinguish indeed obscures much of LvB's point there). Or at the tail end of Romanticism, take Strauss's Metamorphosen or Janacek's Sinfonietta. How does that fit your definition? I don't think you can ever define an entire period or artistic movement as any sort of -phonic. That very much depends on the piece in question.

Yikes, this is what I wrote "Anyway to sum up: whatever-phonic has to do with pitch and not rhythm (at least according to my understanding). And whatever-rhythmic has to do with rhythm and not necessarily pitch.

The possible combinations of the above are practically unlimited.

I wish people would actually read what I write before going off into the deep end.

ZB