Musical textures

[Larry Rinkel]

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

What fun would this place be if anyone did that?

[karlhenning]

I think there must still be ample scope for fun even so, Larry.

[karlhenning]

But you're right, that would suppress a certain percentage of "freethinking" which walks recklessly abroad.

[MishaK]

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

My dear ZB, maybe you should express yourself less ambiguously. How are we to interpret this?:

I always thought that Romantic music on the whole was homophonic.

[jochanaan]

And we seem to be getting farther and farther away from the definitions in my original post.  Remember, monophonic refers to a single line, without accompaniment; homophonic refers to multiple lines playing exactly the same rhythm, whether or not one voice is predominant; and monodic refers to any style in which one voice is clearly predominant and all others are subservient.  At least, that's what I was taught; others here seemed to have learned different definitions.

And zamyrabyrd is exactly right that the possibilities for style combinations are infinite in number, or as near as may be.

[zamyrabyrd]

My dear ZB, maybe you should express yourself less ambiguously.

You're correct. Sometimes I write too fast and don't proofread the way I should.
But on a scale from 1 to 100 what would be the defining style of the Romantic period?
Tonal music, nearly 100%...polyphony (not similar to or as widespead as in the late Renaissance and Baroque) "homophony" as defined by Jochanaan, more chorale like...I still think that is a too limited definition.  Like the term "phrase", "homophony" is pretty loaded and almost as different for anyone who defines it.
Maybe we can come to a consensus and save the musical world?

ZB

[karlhenning]

Maybe we can come to a consensus and save the musical world?

Make it happen, ZB! 

[MishaK]

You're correct. Sometimes I write too fast and don't proofread the way I should.
But on a scale from 1 to 100 what would be the defining style of the Romantic period?
Tonal music, nearly 100%...polyphony (not similar to or as widespead as in the late Renaissance and Baroque) "homophony" as defined by Jochanaan, more chorale like...I still think that is a too limited definition.  Like the term "phrase", "homophony" is pretty loaded and almost as different for anyone who defines it.
Maybe we can come to a consensus and save the musical world?

I think on a scale of 1 to 10 what defines Romanticism is precisely the experimentation with forms, structures, harmonies and dissonances from all sorts of influences that makes the Romantic heritage such a rich one and which opens the doors to all the disparate forms of modernism and postmodernism that follows. To try to narrow Romanticism down to one single musical characteristic I think obscures that rich variety.

[zamyrabyrd]

Make it happen, ZB! 

Who me? A little ole zamira-byrd?
Seriously though, it might be a more profitable way to spend our GMG time, working on musical definitions,
TOGETHER.

ZB

[jochanaan]

Who me? A little ole zamira-byrd?
Seriously though, it might be a more profitable way to spend our GMG time, working on musical definitions,
TOGETHER.

ZB

Indeed; that was the point of my OP.

[zamyrabyrd]

Hi Jochanaan,

I just read you original post again (that's OP?) and couldn't find where simple melody and accompaniment goes. I also scrolled down to bwv's post about the Romantic period's melodies superimposed on Baroque figuration. Doesn't the latter depend on harmonic rhythm, in other words, harmonic the rate of change, the number of chords per measure(s)? The most popular dance of the 19th century, the waltz, was simplicity itself, a basic harmony for one or more measures, not exactly the kind of complex voice leadings of the Baroque. Most of the composers of Romantic period, great and small, wrote waltzes but also nocturnes, and other homophonic works that move chordally rather than by voice leadings.

The degree of complexity (not rhythm) is the issue here. Blocking the chords of a waltz in general is simple and obvious, so the rhythm can be simplified without changing anything of the basic pitches. In pieces that have complex contrapuntal relationships, such an undertaking is not impossible but difficult.   

There is more counterpoint in Chopin that meets the eye, subtle voice leadings even in his waltzes and mazurkas. Chopin himself acknowledged his debt to Bach, thanks to an early teacher of his.

ZB

[jochanaan]

Hi Jochanaan,

I just read you original post again (that's OP?) and couldn't find where simple melody and accompaniment goes...

That's monody.  I guess my definition wasn't too clear. Maybe I could revise it to read: "A single line with relatively simple harmonic accompaniment."

[karlhenning]

There is more counterpoint in Chopin that meets the eye, subtle voice leadings even in his waltzes and mazurkas. Chopin himself acknowledged his debt to Bach, thanks to an early teacher of his.

Yup, it's in there;  he just doesn't put on a dog-&-polyphony show :-)

[zamyrabyrd]

Yup, it's in there;  he just doesn't put on a dog-&-polyphony show :-)

Yeah, like Look at me, I wrote a fugue!!"

About terminology, though, the Copland definitions are what I was taught:
"The second species – homophonic texture – is only slightly more difficult to hear immediately than monophony. It is also more important for us as listeners, because of its constant use in music. It consists of a principle melodic line and a chordal accompaniment. As long as music was vocally and contrapuntally conceived –this is, until the end of the sixteenth century –homophonic texture in our sense was unknown. Homophony was the "invention" of the early Italian opera composers who sought a more direct way of imparting dramatic emotion and a clearer setting of the text than was possible through contrapuntal methods."

ZB

[lukeottevanger]

Yup, it's in there;  he just doesn't put on a dog-&-polyphony show :-)

Except when he does, if that isn't an obvious point  - like the various fugati and canons in the Mazurkas. Opus numbers available on request, but I'm sure you know them.

[Ten thumbs]

Dance music almost by necessity consists of melody with rhythmic accompaniment, as is the case with the waltz, the mazurka and all those dance forms of the Baroque and Classical periods. I'm sure you will find it was much the same even in the Renaissance, judging by written descriptions of dancing in that period.

[Larry Rinkel]

Dance music almost by necessity consists of melody with rhythmic accompaniment, as is the case with the waltz, the mazurka and all those dance forms of the Baroque and Classical periods. I'm sure you will find it was much the same even in the Renaissance, judging by written descriptions of dancing in that period.

But then again, there are gigues in Bach that are fugal in style (e.g., the French Suite #5 in G, the English Suite #3 in G minor). And that little gigue by Mozart for piano starts off as a 3-voice fugue.

[Ten thumbs]

But then again, there are gigues in Bach that are fugal in style (e.g., the French Suite #5 in G, the English Suite #3 in G minor). And that little gigue by Mozart for piano starts off as a 3-voice fugue.

Of course, and one may also add for example Chopin's mazurka Op 50.3, but this is art music, not actually intended to be danced to.

[snyprrr]

bump for reading