Ru-Wiki says that polyphony commonly refers the musical-theoretical
discipline concerning polyphonic composition. the earlier term for which was
COUNTERPOINT.
RT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roman Turovsky" <r.turov...@verizon.net>
To: "vihuela list" <vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:24 AM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Polyphony and counterpoint
The terms are quite interchangeable in other languages, and according to
Wikipedia
polyphony tends to desribe PRE-BAROQUE music, and counterpoint tends to
describe POST-RENAISSANCE one.
Which would make Bartolotti firmly contrapunctal, wouldnit?
RT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Monica Hall" <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
To: "R. Mattes" <r...@mh-freiburg.de>
Cc: "Vihuelalist" <vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:15 AM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Polyphony and counterpoint
Thank you - I hope we can all settle with this definition. But,
trying to bring back this discussion to it's starting point, doesn't
this mean that Lex' use of the term ("the polyphonic nature of
Bartolotti's music") wasn't nearly as unapropriate as Monica claimed?
But maybe as a non-native speaker I miss some of the subtleties of
English as she is spoke ...
The point - which Lex seems to have conceded - is that in English usage
(as I understand it) the term polyphony is more often used to refer to
counterpoint of a specific well defined period rather than in general.
He last wrote
In the historical survey of the term polyphony, in my paper 1980 Grove
(page71) it reads that 'in English usage 'polyphony' tends to be used
'for
early music', while 'for later periods (16th to 18th century' the term
'counterpoint' is preferred...
To which I replied.
That is what I have been trying to say over and over again although I
would
include the 16th century in the definition of early music as does the
Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music. The Harvard Dictionary of Music
refers
to medieval and renaisance periods which is a bit looser.
So - polyphony before 1600 and counterpoint after. As Bartolotti's
music was written after 1600 I think it is likely to cause confusion if
it is referred to as polyphonic. It wasn't so much that Lex was using
the term polyphony in what seemed to me to be the wrong context. When I
preferred to use the term "counterpoint" and tried to explained why I
thought it was preferable, he tried to argue that I was wrong and that
somehow I was denying that Bartolotti's music is polyphonic/contrapuntal
at all.
No doubt he will now respond to say that he wasn't. But that is how it
seemed to me. Of such trivia are arguments born.
I don't think there is any point my saying anything else on the subject.
Monica
<snip>
Etymology is indeed very important; even though meanings evolve,
an understanding of these terms' origins is indispensible when we're
discussing historical music.
I strongly disagree here. Etymology might be interesting in itself and
important in the study of language, but is of no use in a
terminological discurse. In what way is the fact that the top voice of
a polyphonic piece once was considered a texted version of an untexted
clausula (and hence named 'motetus' - with words) relevant to the
study of, say, Motets by Marc-Antoine Charpentier?
Cheers, Ralf Mattes
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
