Talk:Homophony

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: By the way, Bach wrote 371 choral homophonic pieces, according to Grove Music Online. -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 00:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Composers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I say go for it: it fits well here, and reduces duplication. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, it is done, melody dominated homophony now redirects to homophony. Thanks for the input. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Melody dominated homophony]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: GA Review

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Disputable statements

message: After reviewing the article in accordance to the Good Article Criteria, I am declining the article's GA nomination at this time for concerns listed below. I think this is a good start of a technical article but it lacks the substance needed to bring life to the subject and leaves the reader curious for more details.
1. It is well written. - Pass
* While the Lead is a bit on the lean side, the article does not have any glaring violation of WP:MOS.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Weak Pass
* The pay access ref is not grounds on it's own for failing in this category. Most of the text could be cross verified with other sources that are free access. However, I think only having this as a source is a negative (mostly for reasons relating more to the breadth of coverage as noted below). I do think the editors will need to branch out in sources and when they do there will need to be an inclusion of in-line cites per WP:CITE for verification among the different sources.
3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement
* 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Images

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, it is the same piece, so I'll make those changes. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's fine, thank you for your help. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Music sample

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: By the way, thank you for passing the article as a GA. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  To do 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vertical harmony and polyphony 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Is there any good reason why this is article is not located at "homophony", since it redirects here? Can we move it there? Chubbles 06:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; it should simply be at homophony. Another user moved it a while back, but I didn't feel like beginning an argument over something so trivial. But go ahead and move it if you can, or make a post at WP:RM (it would be an uncontroversial move). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 08:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: *:Homophony (music) → :Homophony —(Discuss)— Homophony currently redirects here —Chubbles 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review.
Still to be improved: Wikibooks is not a reliable source. This should be replaced, perhaps one of the other references, which seem satisfactory. Lampman (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps