Re: Digest Number 454

> Gerald Eskelin wrote,
>
>>Why is it important? Just because Paul E mentioned it maybe 86 times? Okay,
>>I guess that's important enough. Did Forte actually say something
>>significant? Perhaps I was too young to notice.

Paul Erlich, evidently offended, replied:
>
> Look, you can drop the attitude -- John said he hadn't studied classical
> tonal analysis and I thought I'd give him an example where he could learn
> about diatonic chord functions, linear harmonic devices, etc., in the
> context of the Western common-practice repertoire. I suppose you'd do away
> with all classical tonal analysis and replace it with . . . ?

Easy baby! The key phrase there was "perhaps I was too young to notice." (I
guess you missed my "wink.") Granted, I came in on the conversation after
the significance of the Forte book was mentioned. I had no intention of
denigrating someone who appears to be your personal choice of experts on
tradition. My own expert of choice (not mine, but my teachers') was Walter
Piston, for whom I have no particular fondness and whose book I would not
recommend to anyone.

Regarding your concern about my valuing classical tonal analysis, my goal is
certainly not to do away with tradition--rather simply to help interested
folks understand it. That's why I wrote "The Sounds of Music: Perception and
Notation." I feel that a better understanding of musical tuning will help to
bring traditional music (indeed, all music) to a vibrant new life.

Paul, read my paragraph again. There is a compliment to you hidden not very
deeply under my facetious remarks.

(To the new reader: The point of all of this is that I may be able to supply
a copy of the book in question. Paul omitted that part.)

>>>The only reason Barbershop blends so much is because it's
>>>monophonic.
>>
>>???
>
> As opposed to polyphonic. Barbershop is supposed to blend into one voice,
> because it's written as one voice. Try counterpoint in JI and get back to
> me, if there's even an instrument around with enough resolution to produce
> the effect.
>
The problem here, as I see it, is somewhat semantic. The term monophonic is
traditionally applicable to a single melody (sans harmony) as in a Gregorian
chant. In traditional "harmonized" styles, the common textural descriptive
term is "homophonic."

I do see the logical application of the term monophonic in regard to
barbershop in that the goal is to make the three "harmony parts" disappear
into the melody and simply "color" it. This is also true of vocal jazz
groups of the big-band era. In both of these styles there is no attempt at
voice leading within the "harmony parts" therefore making the melody the
only real musical entity.

However, Bach often seemed to ignore melodic continuity and "voice leading"
in his "harmony parts." Would a Bach chorale be monophonic or homophonic? Is
it a matter of degree? (God, I hope not. My music appreciation students are
confused enough as it is.)

>The problem here, as I see it, is somewhat semantic.

You got that right!

>The term monophonic is traditionally applicable to a single melody (sans
>harmony) as in a Gregorian chant. In traditional "harmonized" styles, the
>common textural descriptive term is "homophonic."

My bad then. Just read in "homophonic".

-Carl