Homophony,polyphony and contrapuntal ......

[dark_chocolate]

I found it hard to read music theory book ...I don't understand many word like homophony,polyphony,contrapuntal,suspensions and many other words....can somebody explain it?thank youu....

[steve jones]

No problem. Music theory is pretty simple... 

Sorry, Im being sarcastic. Music theory is a big topic, so if you could be a little more specific Id be happy to help you out in what ever way I can.

With respect to the terms you mentioned:

- Counterpoint refers to music made up from independent lines or voices. Bach was famous for his counterpoint skills, just listen to his Goldberg Variations! You might want to look into terms such as canon, fugue, voice leading etc.

- Homophony is like the opposite of counterpoint. It describes music were voices are united in providing harmoniic progression.

- Polyphony is a term used to describe music of multiple voices. Again, think of Bach for a good example of polyphonic music.

- Suspension is completely different. It refers (in the context you're probably speaking of) to a note being held after the harmony has moved on. The suspension usually has to resolve in tonal progressions. Suspended 4th and 2nd chords are common.

SJ

[crazy for ivan moravec]

my friend, if you wanna make your life easier and better, you should get yourself a music dictionary to go with your music theory studies. (and also a whole set of italian, french and german dictionaries for piano pieces esp the late romantic and modern pieces..)

homophony is music with melody that is supported by harmony.
polyphony is when 2 or more melodic lines are combined.
contrapuntal is like the style of counterpoint.
suspension is a consonant note held over while the harmony changes, thus becoming a dissonant note that is then resolved. it's only one of some other Non-harmonic Tones.

...or something like that. 

[crazy for ivan moravec]

oh, steve jones' post is better.

[prometheus]

- Counterpoint refers to music made up from independent lines or voices. Bach was famous for his counterpoint skills, just listen to his Goldberg Variations! You might want to look into terms such as canon, fugue, voice leading etc.

Counterpoint refers to setting a melody against another melody. It is a musical skill, concept or art.

- Homophony is like the opposite of counterpoint. It describes music were voices are united in providing harmoniic progression.

This is called monophonic. And it is not the opposite of counterpoint. Counterpoint is a musical concept. Not a style of composition or a word descriping the character of a piece.

Homophonic music is music with one disticnt melody and background accompaniment. Key to comparing it with polyphonic is that both the melody and the accompanying voices move together in the same rhythimic pattern. Most of Chopin fits this description quite well.

- Polyphony is a term used to describe music of multiple voices. Again, think of Bach for a good example of polyphonic music.

Uuh, almost all western music has multiple voices. If you have a series of chords you also talk about chord voicings. Each individual note is a 'voice'.

Polyphony is music with voices that move individually. So each voice has it's own disctinct melody. Each melody is of equal importance. And each melody has it's own rhythmic pattern. So voices move together in homophonic music. When there is only one voice, so one melody line without any form of accompaniment, then it is monophonic music. (Note that music like Bach's cello suites aren't monophonic.) In polyphonic music the voices are all individuals, they are all equal and they all do their own thing.

- Suspension is completely different. It refers (in the context you're probably speaking of) to a note being held after the harmony has moved on. The suspension usually has to resolve in tonal progressions. Suspended 4th and 2nd chords are common.

Yes, a note is held over from one chord to the new one, creating a dissonance that has to be resolved in stepwise movement down.

Suspended chords are really something else. These are not resolved. They are used as constant chords in pop music. These chords are only named after the suspension technique.

[steve jones]

Counterpoint refers to setting a melody against another melody. It is a musical skill, concept or art.

Ofcourse, you are quite right. Didnt they used to call notes 'points' back in the day, hence the turn 'counterpoint'?

SJ

[steve jones]

Suspended chords are really something else. These are not resolved. They are used as constant chords in pop music. These chords are only named after the suspension technique.

Lol, you mean like the Linkin Park Sus2 axe chords. This is getting so old now.

SJ

[steve jones]

Uuh, almost all western music has multiple voices. If you have a series of chords you also talk about chord voicings. Each individual note is a 'voice'.

Depends on context. As you probably are aware, poly-phony means multiple voices, for example, 'a keyboard has x notes of polyphony, ie, can play x number of voices at one time'. But you are quite correct in that he term does get used to describe music of an independent linear nature.

SJ

[dark_chocolate]

Thank you for all the answer...It help me a lot!

[prometheus]

Steve, your definitions weren't accurate enough. The meaning of 'polyphony' in the context of cell phone ring tones and keyboards/digital piano's is different from it's definition in music.

[steve jones]

Precisely, hence the ambiguous nature of the term. But then again, they always did have a knack for making things more confusing than necessary!


I must admit that, although I feel these terms serve a purpose, I cant help but feel that their usefulness is limited in much of todays vast rep.

Take homophonic vs contrapunctal textures as an example...

Look at the opening theme in Mozart K545 Mvt 1. Here we have two clearly independent voices, suggesting a counterpoint. Yet, with closer inspection it is clear that the lower voice is just an Alberti figure representing a harmonic accompaniment. So how do we describe this music objectively?

With this in mind, it strikes me that much of tonal music sits along a line between the two extremes of homophony and polyphony. Music can lean eitherway, but rarely fit perfectly into one category or the other. A Bach Fugue is clearly a counterpoint, but how would you class a Chopin Nocturne (Op27 No2)? I would guess that it could, subjectively speaking, be considered either depending on how the individual perceives it.

Maybe I am just misinterpretting the true meaning of these terms?


Now consider this...

Imagine we have a monophonic line that suggests an underlying harmonic progression. When playing on a keboard this could only be interpreted as monophony. Yet, if orchestrated in full score, its likely that different parts of the line would be given to different instruments, suggesting a great number of voices without ever moving into polyphonic territory.

Yet a further example might be the 20th century soundmass. Quite often these dense textures contain scores of independent voices. Yet only the dense cluster is perceived, begging the question 'Is polyphony something that we perceive or something that we rely on the score to tell us?'.


But all this bs aside, I get your point. Maybe I should put more attention into my posts (especially a 3.:30 in the am!). If I were 'dark_chocolate' Id request a refund 

All the best,

SJ

[prometheus]

Look at the opening theme in Mozart K545 Mvt 1. Here we have two clearly independent voices, suggesting a counterpoint. Yet, with closer inspection it is clear that the lower voice is just an Alberti figure representing a harmonic accompaniment. So how do we describe this music objectively?

It is not homophonic vs contrapuntal. It is homophonic vs polyphonic.

The way you describe this it should be clearly homophonic. A melody plus fragmented chords as accompaniment. Sure, there is counterpoint involved here. But that is because counterpoint is a musical element that exists both in homophonic and polyphonic music.

A voice can't be independent and an Alberti bass accompaniment at the same time. There is a difference between independent voices and distinct voices. I assume you meant the last in this case. If a voice is independent then it does not accompaniment another voice. I already pointed out that rhythmic pattern is important here. Surely an Alberti bass does not have a independent rhythmic pattern. It does not even have the pattern of a melody. It is not even a melody. It functions as a texture with harmonic properties and rhythmic pulse. An Alberti bass is made up of arpeggios, broken chords. This also means they represent more than one voice. A chord has at least three notes.

With this in mind, it strikes me that much of tonal music sits along a line between the two extremes of homophony and polyphony.

Sure, most cases aren't black and white.

Music can lean eitherway, but rarely fit perfectly into one category or the other. A Bach Fugue is clearly a counterpoint,

A bach fugue uses counterpoint. A bach fugue is clearly an example of polyphonic music. I though I had explained this.

but how would you class a Chopin Nocturne (Op27 No2)? I would guess that it could, subjectively speaking, be considered either depending on how the individual perceives it.

Let me first say these terms are build on how humans percieve music. I talk about voices and stuff like that. You can't measure if something is a voice because this talks about how humans perceive music. Humans perceive music by catogising every note to a specific range or spectrum. They hear notes that change into other notes. Not notes that stop while others start. This means you can connect these notes together with a line.

Our brain does this. The way our brains order sound is the origin of these terms. Our brain can order sound both horizontally or vertically. The way for a composer to make this destinction is through rhythmic patterns. Why do we hear single chords as single chords and Bach fugues as several melodies being played together? This is because of the rhythmic pattern and this is the basis of the definition between homophonic and polyphonic music.

Imagine we have a monophonic line that suggests an underlying harmonic progression.

Ok, change this to: "Imagine we have a single melody line that suggests a harmonic progression." Most of Bach's works for solo violin and solo cello follow this definition. Most of these pieces have several voices eventhough only one notes is played at a time.  Though these pieces do not have a stong polyphonic charater they are made out of compound melody, as Allan Forte calls it (not sure how widely used this term is). This means the melody is build up out of several layers, meaning the melody implies several voices as well. If one were to connect all the notes with a line then more than one line is needed.

Yet a further example might be the 20th century soundmass. Quite often these dense textures contain scores of independent voices. Yet only the dense cluster is perceived, begging the question 'Is polyphony something that we perceive or something that we rely on the score to tell us?'.

Well, if all this is heard as a 'dense cluster' then why do you say it contains 'independent voices'. Again, it seems that you meant 'distinct voices', eventhough they cannot be heard. If the voices were truly indedendent they would have independent rhythmic patters and then they could not form clusters.
Clusters are chords by seconds in an uninverted form so that the voices are also seconds apart. So these notes are all sound together, so with the same rhythmic pattern. This means they cannot be independent from each other. I imagine your definition of a cluster would be 'groups of notes'. If notes are grouped then how can they be independent?

I already answered your last question. If you are going to write a polyphonic piece it is very important to take care of each voice it's independence. The notes may not sound as groups, as chords, as clusters. They must remain individual. In the end you can only be sure about this by listening since the whole definition of the term comes from the way humans perceive music, as explained before.
Now the fact that rhythmic pattern plays a large role, this is something that could be seen on the score. But the definiiton of polypony is not that voices must seem to be independent on the score.

[steve jones]

"Surely an Alberti bass does not have a independent rhythmic pattern. It does not even have the pattern of a melody."

Sure. But in many SATB works, then inner voices serve only to support the harmony. Infact, counterpoints written to support a Cantus Firmi could often be considered mere harmonic support.

I dont disagree with you on this point, I only propose fault in the classification system. I would say that some Alberti figures offer more independence than the inner voices of some so called 'polyphonic' music. Just take a look through a few of Bach's chorals - it is not uncommon for a number of voices to share rhythm and be related through harmony. How are they considered independent when an Alberti bass (or another broken accompaniment is not?

How about the B section of Rachmaninov's Op23 No5? In the second cycle you have an arpeggiated accompaniment, with a harmonised melody and a contrapunctal inner voice. How could this be caterogised other than to say that it exhibits characteristics of both?

What about if a work is polytonal and has an accompanyment of broken chords NOT related to the melody by harmony (or sometimes rhythm either)? Does polytonality void the other categorisations?

Dont get me wrong, I am certainly not trying to propose alternative categorisations for these examples. I dont feel they fit into either adequately, which makes me think that such terminology is all but redundant.


"Most of Bach's works for solo violin and solo cello follow this definition"

Absolutely. I was not aware of the term compound melody, but we can use it from here on if you like.

This is actually a very interesting concept, as many melodies suggest a harmonic progression or some other factor implying their independance (register, dynamic, articulation etc). Never the less, we tend to think of them as melodies requiring accompaniment.


"Again, it seems that you meant 'distinct voices', eventhough they cannot be heard. If the voices were truly indedendent they would have independent rhythmic patters and then they could not form clusters."

But this is absolutely the case. Take some of the work by composers like Ligeti and Penderecki. Performers will be asked to play unorthodox techniques in series, often independent of meter (like Ponticello scratches and other weird effects). Each performer is in essense forming an independent voice, yet the result is of a soundmass, rather than of polyphony.

I  mean, you could write an aleatoric piece where each voice plays totally randomly, yet with enough voices they will blur and form a mass. Question is, do you base your categorisation on what the music sounds like, or how it looks on the score?

Obviously this is extreme example, but it illustrates further the flaws in this system of categorisation.

Wow, who knew that this topic would turn out to be so interesting! We shall all be experts in musical terminology at this rate.

SJ

[prometheus]

Sure. But in many SATB works, then inner voices serve only to support the harmony. Infact, counterpoints written to support a Cantus Firmi could often be considered mere harmonic support.

A piece written for choir doesn't have to be polyphonic in nature. An SATB piece does have four voices. These four voices can work together to form a chord. Often this is what  happens.
In that case the melodies from the two outher voices can be recognised. The inner voices aren't very important. They need to be there to support the melody. The bass voice is very important for the harmony. And the soprano voice will create the most dominant melody. The melodies of the inner voices will be very hard to hear. You could make a case for the idea that the soprano has the melody and the other three voices create the harmonic background that accompanies the melody or as harmonisation of the melody.

Chorals can't be polyphonic because if they are they can't sing lyrics. Well, in theory they could but then each voice would be singing it's own lyrics and one wouldn't be able to understand much. If they sing the same lyrics together then then need to have the same rhythm, the rhythm dictated by the language.

But Alberti bass in chorales? You mean the organ? I don't think the concept of Alberti bass was established when Bach wrote his chorales. But when the organ takes some liberties and adds some more intricacies and ornamentations to that what the choir does then this has nothing to do with polyphony. It is clear that the organ is supporting the choir and adding some spice because a choir doesn't have much finesse.

I dont disagree with you on this point, I only propose fault in the classification system. I would say that some Alberti figures offer more independence than the inner voices of some so called 'polyphonic' music.

Maybe you really mean 'so called'. It is not easy to write a strong polyphonic piece. If you succeed then all the voices will have a strong own will and strong melodic character throughout the piece. Sure, there will be some pedal points or full chords at the end, but you can take some liberties. Not all voices will be super-independent the whole time. The idea of the music is to make it clear to the listener that there are a number of different voices. There are several techniques to do this that can all be found in Bach fugues.

Just take a look through a few of Bach's chorals - it is not uncommon for a number of voices to share rhythm and be related through harmony. How are they considered independent when an Alberti bass (or another broken accompaniment is not?

Again, chorales aren't polyphonic. The fact that counterpoint is needed to write the music doesn't say anything about the nature of the voices. Counterpoint means you aren't setting chords against melody but 'note against note'.

How about the B section of Rachmaninov's Op23 No5? In the second cycle you have an arpeggiated accompaniment, with a harmonised melody and a contrapunctal inner voice. How could this be caterogised other than to say that it exhibits characteristics of both?

I don't know that piece. I may have it on disc somewhere but I can't find it that quickly. Of course there is no reason you must either have a melody against chords or many individual melodies entwined. You can have arpeggios plus two independent melodies. In that case the music neither fits the definition of polyphonic or homophonic. I don't know if calling it 'accompionated stereophonic music', or something like that, would make music theory easier or harder.
Note, I have not looked at the piece so I am basing this totally on the assumption your description, and my interpretation of it, is correct.

What about if a work is polytonal and has an accompanyment of broken chords NOT related to the melody by harmony (or sometimes rhythm either)? Does polytonality void the other categorisations?

Assuming you don't confuse polytonal with polyphonic.

Polytonal means that a piece has two 'layers' of music both with their own tonality. So as you describe. Accompanying arpeggios in one key and a melody in another key. Polytonality refers to the nature of the tonality, the harmony. It does not matter in which key or what kind of tonality musical elements have in the definition of homophonic and polyphonic. Tonality is no part of the definition. So it makes no difference. In this case you clearly have chords and a melody. The fact that there is an unusual tonal difference between them has nothing to do with the 'musical phonics'.

Dont get me wrong, I am certainly not trying to propose alternative categorisations for these examples. I dont feel they fit into either adequately, which makes me think that such terminology is all but redundant.

All but redundant? I don't understand what you mean.

Obviously the two terms of polyphonic and homophonic are musical concepts, paragons, achetypes. No one said all music fits either one perfectly.


"Most of Bach's works for solo violin and solo cello follow this definition"

Absolutely. I was not aware of the term compound melody, but we can use it from here on if you like.

This is actually a very interesting concept, as many melodies suggest a harmonic progression or some other factor implying their independance (register, dynamic, articulation etc).

All correct. But you must realise there are actually more than one melodies in a case like this.

Never the less, we tend to think of them as melodies requiring accompaniment.

I am not so sure about this. Maybe you are right, I can only speak for myself.

But this is absolutely the case. Take some of the work by composers like Ligeti and Penderecki. Performers will be asked to play unorthodox techniques in series, often independent of meter (like Ponticello scratches and other weird effects). Each performer is in essense forming an independent voice, yet the result is of a soundmass, rather than of polyphony.

If music is too complex to be heard at a deep level I guess these terms break down.

I  mean, you could write an aleatoric piece where each voice plays totally randomly, yet with enough voices they will blur and form a mass. Question is, do you base your categorisation on what the music sounds like, or how it looks on the score?

Obviously it is about how the music is heard.

Obviously this is extreme example, but it illustrates further the flaws in this system of categorisation.

Since when did someone propose all music could be categorised perfectly?

I mean, is there anything that can be categorised perfecly? I don't think I have to go into  the problems of taxonomy in the areas of libraries and biological taxonomy.

Also, the idea that these terms exist so that people can attempt to categorise music is of course false.

[steve jones]

"Well, in theory they could but then each voice would be singing it's own lyrics and one wouldn't be able to understand much."

Indeed, it would be quite confusing! That said, you near imitative counterpoint in vocal music do you not? Not sure if this would class or not.



"But Alberti bass in chorales? You mean the organ? I don't think the concept of Alberti bass was established when Bach wrote his chorales."

I dont think I mentioned Alberti in connection with Chorals. Maybe my post was not clear, apologies if so.


"There are several techniques to do this that can all be found in Bach fugues."

Funnily enough Iv been study Bach's work quite a bit lately. Im finding difficult to get into the linear nature of the composition. The limited analysis work Iv done in the past has been more with Classical music, so Im used to breaking down the form and the identifying the harmonic progressions of each phrase. This seems difficult to do in Bach's music as chord progressions arent clear, if they actually exsist at all.

Im finding the melodic techniques quite fascinating though, really quite ingenius. When you see how an entire Fugue is built from little more than a couple of tiny melodic motifs, it really hits home how good the man was. And the most amazing thing is how these techniques are still in use today - just look at Schoenberg's 12 tone system.


"I don't know that piece. I may have it on disc somewhere but I can't find it that quickly"

You will know it, its one of his famous preludes. Here's a sample of the passage in question.

https://download.yousendit.com/D9C2E1C35C7D036B

As far as I can tell, the RH plays a melody which is harmonised using diatonic planning ie, adding parallel intervals (not got the score to hand, will have to check on that). The RH plays accompanying arpeggios and also a counterpoint. Its a beautiful passage actually.


"It does not matter in which key or what kind of tonality musical elements have in the definition of homophonic and polyphonic. Tonality is no part of the definition."

Ofcourse. But the point I was making was regarding the nature of 'accompaniment'. When two musical ideas are working along side, yet with clearly different tonal centres and rhythms, is it appropriate to term them as melody / accompaniment? I think you're right that tonality should have anything to do with it, but if it results in a breakdown of the relationship then I guess maybe it does? If that were the case, we'd be heading back into polyphonic country, be in a rather unorthodox manner.


"Since when did someone propose all music could be categorised perfectly?"

I guess nobody, yet it is rather in the nature of the beast to want to. We analyse works and try to describe the music in universal terminology. I often think that we should care more about how it sounds than how much sense it makes on paper!


SJ

[steve jones]

Opps, I was wrong about the Rach piece. Only the octave is planned, and Im not ever sure if that sounds on the piano - isnt an octave melody considered to be like a doubling?

SJ