Re: Chord-Leading

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:53:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Dr.Matt) wrote:

>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Richard Ratner  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:37:40 -0500, Joey Goldstein
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Richard Ratner wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:02:36 GMT, nightingale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> >Homophony
>>>> >
>>>> >Polyphonic music in which all melodic parts move together at more or
>>>> >less the same pace. A further distinction is sometimes made between
>>>> >homophonic textures that are homorhythmic (ex.1) and those in which
>>>> >there is a clear differentiation between melody and accompaniment
>>>> 
>>>> I have a real problem with this definition, because it is misleading.
>>>> The fact is, nearly 1000 years ago or thereabouts, nearly all music
>>>> became "polyphonic", in the sense that monophony went out of fashion,
>>>> and it has remianed so to this day.  For this reason, calling this or
>>>> that music polyphonic just because more than one pitch sounds at one
>>>> time became obsolete.  At some point, as shown in the three references
>>>> I provided, the word "polyphony" forked into polyphony and homophony,
>>>> to distinguish  music constructed with independent voices from that
>>>> constructed with melody and accompaniment. So when one hears that a
>>>> texture is polyphonic, it should mean to them more than that the music
>>>> has more than one voice -- it should mean that the music is not
>>>> homophonic or monophonic.
>>>
>>>And more recently it "forked" back again the other way when synthesizer
>>>companies began manufacturing and marketing "polyphonic" synthesizers,
>>>i.e. synths capable of playing more than one pitch at a time.
>>>
>>>Both meanings of polyphonic are still therefore in use and are still valid.
>>
>>>From earlier in the thread, by me:
>>
>>*****
>>
>>"Now I see where you are coming from -- the realm of digital keyboards
>>and sound cards.. In this sense you are correct -- 128 note polyphony
>>means 128 different notes can sound at one time --  but for the rest
>>of music, trust the oxford dictionary or merriam webster or any other
>>respected reference for the definition of "polyphony".  "
>>
>>This sense of "polyphony" is limited
>>to technology and has not appeared in general reference sources yet,
>>as I have shown. Technology has its own definition of "polyphony" that
>>is applicable ONLY to technology. The generally accepted definition of
>>polyphony as it applies to MUSIC  is readily available in any
>>respected dictionary or music dictionary. I have provided two such
>>definitions.
>>
>>*****
>>
>>It did not fork back again. The meaning of the word in conversations
>>about music is the same, however it has been extended by  a special
>>case added for technology which has not made it into general reference
>>works yet.  I hope you will still understand what someone means when
>>they speak of music with a polyphonic texture. 
>
>Richard. Catch a clue. The meaning currently used for synthesizers
>has been used to describe music for over 1000 years. It's a Greek
>word taken over into English.

Look, this is getting boring. I repeat, if you come upon a
conversation where music is mentioned as having a polyphonic texture
and you want to think this means nothing other than that it is not
monphonic, mazel tov.