Talk:Polyphony

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Music/Music genres task force Polyphony is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre Music theory This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Not aware of a greek poliphony does someone mind dwelling on the subject ? I thought greeks used bouzukis and other Middle Eastern instruments only. Thank you--207.164.4.52 (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this article be split so that the composition technique and the "modern usage" can be treated separately. They are only superficially related. I think this can be accomplished by:

• Retitling this article "Polyphony (composition)", keeping all but the "modern usage" section.
• Putting the modern usage section into a new article titled "Polyphony (instrument)".
• Creating a new article "Polyphony", which would be a disambiguation page.

Alternately, this could be done:

• Move the modern usage section into a new article titled "Polyphony (instrument)".
• Include the {{Otheruses4|1=one thing|2=a different thing|3=location}} template on both pages.

Initially, Polyphony (instrument) would be a stub. I would be willing to expand it out of stub status.

Comments? --Trweiss 23:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object. First, I don't see how "Polyphony (instrument)" would ever stop being a stub. Secondly, the meanings are related. Third, the "Polyphony (composition)" article should not be there but at "Polyphony" per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Hyacinth 07:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first point, there is a great deal to be said about "polyphony (instrument)"—easily as much as currently exists for the composition technique. The article would discuss:

• What a technical challenge it was, at first, to build a polyphonic electronic instrument
• That polyphonic electronic instruments were revolutionary
• How polyphony increased over time; how digital electronic instruments removed certain barriers to extended polyphony
• Why it is worthwhile to have more polyphony on an instrument than fingers on two hands
• How being polyphonic is different than being multitimbral, and how these concepts are related
• That while an instrument may have polyphony and may be pressure sensitive, pressure sensitivity may not be "polyphonic"
• That "polyphonic" is now applied more generally to things other than electronic instruments

As for your second point, you would have to explain to me how the composition technique and the technology are related, other than the superficial meaning of "many notes". And finally, to your third point, citing the common name convention may not apply. In this case, it is very much based on your point of view. If you are a music history acedemic, I grant that the first sense is more common. At a NAMM Show, the second sense would be more common. A Google search on "polyphony" shows more initial hits on the composition technique. A Google search on "polyphonic", shows more about the technology. (The "Polyphonic" article redirects here. I would argue it should redirect to Polyphony (instrument).) In any case, my alternative split suggestion allows the composition technique to retain its current title, "Polyphony".

--Trweiss 14:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Google search only proves that the instrument usage is something electronic;such topics are disproportionately represented on the web. No one's selling a product featuring compositional polyphony. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already acquiesced on the point that compositional polyphony can keep its title, polyphony. The point was made in the spirit described here: wikipedia:google test. --Trweiss 04:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because polyphony is important to the development of Western music, to the history of Christianity and the Catholic Church, and to the development of the Christian liturgical tradition, this article needs significant expansion. Here are the ways in which it can be improved:

• Detailed history. The development of polyphony from the middle ages to the present.
  • Specific focus on the development of polyphony in the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Baroque periods
• Musical characteristics. How polyphony actually works, how it's different from melody/harmony, Gregorian chant, etc.
• Influences. How polyphony influence music, the development of Christianity, and the development of liturgy

Chart123 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do topics really justify each other on Wikipedia? Hyacinth 22:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember reading, more than once, that polyphony was present in the traditional musical culture of some peoples in sub-Saharan Africa. It's been several years, however, since I read that. Am I mistaken, did I get this mixed-up with something else?

If someone knows about this, can you please add it to the article? Thanks. --Cotoco 03:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... I will get on that ASAP... you should look too... 70.188.178.170 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a mistake that came from people misinterpreting call and response, or similar, with polyphony. In the end, polyphony is something quite unique to western music.58.175.42.114 (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the trivia section (about "polyphony" being the longest common english word type-able on a standard keyboard with only the right hand) is necessary, useful, or within the spirit of this type of article. I generally think of "Trivia" sections as belonging to articles on things that are noteworthy because they have a fan base (like tv shows or harry potter books or bands). Thoughts, anyone? J Lorraine 02:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it does not belong in this article; however, if there is an article covering trivial facts about the keyboard layout, it could go there. (I'm going ahead and removing it.) Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel happy that all of the material is strictly NPOV - especially in the first section. The rejection of melisma-against-melisma is contrary to the evidence of the surviving material from the "St Martial" (i.e. Limoges) School, and the claim that the composition was therefore not line-by-line is hardly NPOV when it involves rejection of the clear statements of contemporary theorists and composers. See e.g. R.H.Hoppin "Medieval Music" OldTownAdge (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Stanley Jordan appear at the end of the list of Renaissance polyphonic composers? His music is no more or less polyphonic than that of any other jazz musician. I think someone's having a laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.48.42 (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that both this article and the one on Counterpoint agree that Polyphony is generally used to describe music with independent parts of the Renaissance or earlier, and that Counterpoint is the usual term for such music of the Baroque or later, why is Bach on the list of notable artists in this article at all, let alone first? Whilst I'm not stupid enough to deny his place in Western music, he probably would have described himself as a contrapuntalist rather than a polyphonist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maarvarq (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some (off-Wiki) colleagues were discussing polyphony, and one of them pointed to this article. Just thought I'd share (FWIW) that one response was "I wouldn't take anything in wikipedia seriously," and they singled out the following sentence for criticism:

"According to the Cultural Model, origins of polyphony are connected to the development of human musical culture; polyphony came as the natural development of the primordial monophonic singing; therefore polyphonic traditions are bound to replace gradually monophonic traditions."

The criticism, I believe, is entirely justified. For starters, the claim is unreferenced (and I have already tagged it as such). Additional comments (again, off-Wiki) regarding the statement in question:

• "This is nonsense. There are very highly developed monophonic traditions (think India), this kind of musical Darwinism is absurd."
• "This is just really sophisticated me-ism. More Western civ claptrap. Some of the most sophisticated music on the planet comes from the Vedic tradition. Similarly with Burmese Drum Circle music."
• "The idea of "polyphonic evolution" is just another piece of euro-centric academic bullshit. The music of India is some of the most advanced and sophisticated in the world with a history longer than that of Europe, and they are not polyphonic at all."

-- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrofrog, perhaps you are just prejudiced and bigoted against western cultural music as a whole? The evolution of polyphony is something quite traceable through western music, whereas Hindustani and Carnatic music has remained quite reliant on drone and melody instead. In the end, this article should mostly be about this "western civ claptrap" you seem to hate so much. If you do not wish to partake in editing an article about an aspect of western music, no one is forcing you. 58.175.42.114 (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not prejudiced nor bigoted, and furthermore I take issue with your accusation. I also didn't say that polyphony isn't traceable through Western music, nor did I say Indian music isn't monophonic. The problems with the sentence in question, are (1) the implication (intentional or not) is "Western music is better than other music" and (2) the sentence is unreferenced, and has been for almost a year. These being the actual concerns, perhaps you would care to address them? (And I did note that these are comments from elsewhere, from those who hold Wikipedia in low esteem. If anything, I posted this here out of concern for Wikipedia's reputation.) Thank you, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every sentence in the "origins" section has a "citation needed" tag. Yet the sentences reference treatises like Musica enchiriadis and Winchester troper whose articles are themselves documented. Is it really necessary to footnote a summary of another page's info? —Wahoofive (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objection, I have removed the tags. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MP3 file at the beginning of this article is wrong. The player has completely ignored the key signature of A flat major, instead playing as if there were no sharps or flats in the key. MrCrazyFrog (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early jazz, in the style which Wikipedia calls Dixieland jazz, often has polyphonic elements. Polyphony also appears at times in later jazz; for instance, in the passage at 2:20' of the Charlie Parker recording "Bird Of Paradise." – Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bach example isn't as helpful as it might be. It does not include clefs and the fingering numbers are distracting. Non-musicians might find the compressed keyboard-style two-stave notation confusing as well, given that there are four voices. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have the energy to deal with this just now so I'm leaving it here: The section on Georgian singing clearly contains a copyvio. The sentence beginning "Readers might remember (from the very beginning of this book) ..." is obviously cribbed from somewhere else, since Wikipedia isn't a book. A quick Google search turns up Who Asked the First Question: The Origins of Human Choral Singing, Intelligence and Speech, a book by Joseph Jordania at Tbilisi Ivane Javakhishvili State University. It's not freely available so it's difficult for me to determine the extent of the violation. Hairy Dude (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Here's the original edit, by NikaPilot. I don't think Wikipedia offers a Scribd login, nor does my local library, so we're not going to get more of the source unless Nika supplies it. That paper is already used as a source for the article, though. Think we can just summarize that passage and leave the citation to the paper? Ibadibam (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember what I have edited. If you remind me, I might be able to provide extra sources. Sorry if I was not clear. NikaPilot (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Me again. Here is the link to Jordania's book if someone is interested. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.3973&rep=rep1&type=pdf NikaPilot (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here, notable "polyphonic" composers are listed ... not many of them. Bach is the sole composer from a later musical style to be included. Why? If Bach is listed, why not the many other Baroque composers who wrote polyphonic music (by its loosest definition)? We usually think of Bach as a great contrapuntalist; this is not the same as "polyphonic composer". My advice is to remove Bach and keep it to earlier composers of what is more normally tagged "poloyphonic" style, as opposed to "monophonic". Tony (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And a second point: there's a rather slim subsection called "Protestant Britain and the United States". Really? In a summary-style article? New Zealand gets a mention here. Very odd prioritising. By now, non-musicians and musicians will be getting the wrong idea. Tony (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Bach from the list. Although it could be argued he incorporated polyphony into his music, he's hardly a representative example. Not sure why we need a list in the first place, though. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint is a subset of—not an alternative to—polyphonic forms and techniques. Baroque counterpoint was an outgrowth of earlier European polyphonic composition. Bach was particularly innovative among his contemporaries, particularly his use of imitative polyphony in his fugues. Considering that Bach is usually held up as the culmination of centuries of development of European polyphony, I think it his omission from this article would be a surprising one.

The section on Anglo-American music is probably there because shapenote singers make a big deal of their books containing more polyphony than the average hymnal. That enthusiasm notwithstanding, the use of polyphony in west gallery music, and its subsequent influence on early American composers like those of the first New England School, is a rare case of polyphony in the music of common people, as opposed to that of Church and court. Ibadibam (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, three terms, from broader to narrower scopes: voice leading (the interaction of parts in motion); polyphony (most often used to refer to the growth of multi-part music from the 12th/13th century out of the previous monophonic tradition); and counterpoint (most often used to refer to the Baroque tradition of independent parts—especially independent rhythmically, but there are other factors in the distinction). So in a way you're right: counterpoint is a subset of polyphony; but show me a passage of Baroque music that's polyphonic but not contrapuntal. Don't we have an article on counterpoint? Why confuse readers? Tony (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I usually think of counterpoint as being the more narrow in definition, referring specifically to European art music techniques in the Baroque and Classical periods. In other words, counterpoint is a set of harmonic techniques that effect a certain style, while polyphony broadly describes the harmonic texture of any music. Ibadibam (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be on board with what I wrote, I guess. Counterpoint involves both harmony and voice leading. There's a cline at issue, with horizontal and vertical at each pole. Counterpoint is toward the horizontal pole, but involves harmony (root movement) too. Polyphony is what is not monophonic. Tony (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homophony is also not monophonic, and some sources treat homophony as distinct from, rather than a form of, polyphony. Anyway, if we agree that counterpoint is a form of polyphony specific to a particular place and period, we don't agree that this fact means it should be under-represented in this article. Ibadibam (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly shouldn't be underrepresented here. Just not overrepresented in ways that fuzz up the distinction. Tony (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or fixed. No clefs. No time signature. POV fingering indications that Bach would have found perplexing. Shallow relationship with the adjacent text. Palestrina, for example, would be a better example at the top. Tony (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a snippet of a larger score, so there wouldn't be any clefs or time signature for that bar. I don't think the intention is for the reader to be able to play or sing the music themselves, but just to have something to follow while listening to the audio. After all, the target audience is a broad one, not limited to trained musicians. That said, if you can come up with an example that is just as brief but clearer to the expert eye, go for it! Ibadibam (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Ibadibam. It's kind-of subprofessional not to include those basics; the inclusion of "fingering" is very antiquated; and the text doesn't even refer to the excerpt. Tony (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the importance of polyphonic music in many parts of Asia, most obviously in Indonesian gamelan, but also throughout Southeast Asia, Northeast India, many indigenous (aboriginal) musics of India and many other places, it seems very odd indeed that Asia is completely missing in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.13.56 (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're knowledgable about this topic, please add some information. I was taught, however, that gamelan music is typically not polyphony but Heterophony. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience in a Georgian choir, I can tell, this section has multiple glaring factual errors — as well as omissions. (What's worse, this section was copied verbatim from the UNESCO website, complete with awkward and oft-wrong grammar; it's pathetic on their parts. UNESCO's, that is. Whomever posted it was merely lazy or didn't properly put the entire latter section in quotes.) The only correct part is the first two sentences, which cite a proper source for music (the UN's information is often… middling at best, and the blurb used for the remainder of the section is decidedly far from such comparative excellence).

First, "complex polyphony" in Svaneti: I'm guessing what is intended is what might most easily be termed "microtonal" (although it doesn't quite fit into the Western definition of the term). Additionally, in contrast to the complexity in pitch, songs from Svaneti usually don't have more than three separate parts (at least in my admittedly-limited experience).

Second, Western Georgian music does indeed have yodelling parts — known as k'rimanch'uli (mkhedruli "კრიმანჭული": usually a "top" vocal part — not necessarily male, as implied by the article, however). But it omitted the fact that k'rimanch'uli is partially improvised and the inclusion of said technique is mostly found in specific parts of Western Georgia. To be specific, according to Teona Lomsadze, it is mostly found in Guria and Achara, and but rarely found in songs from Imereti and Samegrelo.

Third, the there's the "polyphonic dialogue over a bass background" which is claimed to be a phenomenon of Kakheti. Georgian vocal music with various kinds of accompaniment are found throughout the Kartvelian-speaking world (brass seems to be less common than string, aerophone, or percussion in traditional ensembles). Rather, this odd sentence most likely owes itself to a confusion with Eastern Georgian ornamentation, which is most pronounced in Kakheti, but is found throughout Eastern and (to a lesser extent) central Georgia. (Like the k'rimanch'uli, it also has a layer of improvisation.)

Nearly all of these issues are evident in the claim that "Chak'rulo" (mis-spelt in the article "Chakrulo") is a song from Svaneti with k'rimanch'uli. "Chak'rulo" comes from the regions-cum-former-kingdoms of Kartli and Kakheti and has ornamentation but absolutely no yodelling of any kind. (I've listened to six or so different Georgian ensembles' renditions of the song, including the one on the Voyager Golden Record — the way the various parts move separately can fool a casual listener, but only a casual listener.) For reference, the bit on "Chak'rulo" runs: The Chakrulo song, which is sung at ceremonies and festivals and belongs to the first category, is distinguished by its use of metaphor and its yodel, the krimanchuli and a “cockerel’s crow”, performed by a male falsetto singer.

I'm honestly not sure they got anything right in that portion, since web searches for what "Chakrulo" would be in mkhedruli ("ჩაქრულო") don't yield anything except for the assumption that is a typo for "ჩაკრულო" (that's "Chak'rulo" in the native mkhedruli).

The paragraph only gets worse as it progresses: "Some of these songs are linked to the cult of the grapevine and many date back to the eighth century. The songs traditionally pervaded all areas of everyday life, ranging from work in the fields (the Naduri, which incorporates the sounds of physical effort into the music) to songs to curing of illnesses and to Christmas Carols (Alilo)."

With respect to the supposed "grapevine cult": if it's talking about any cult in Georgia, the eighth century BC is what would be indicated (Christianity has been present in the country since shortly after the death of Jesus of Nazareth in the first century and has been the state religion since 319 — by the eighth century AD, it'd be difficult to find anyone practicing a non-Abrahamic religion). However, the copious mentions of wine in much Georgian polyphony most likely predate either eighth century by a great deal and almost certainly have nothing to do with a "cult": the earliest production of fruit wine was of grape wine and is attested circa 6000 BC in Georgia using the same methods they use to this day. Actually, grape wine is central to all non-Muslim Caucasian cultures. (The Georgian traditional method of making wine is likewise protected by UNESCO, making this booboo all the more glaring.)

As for the remainder, aside from the abysmal grammar (not sure what the middle part is supposed to indicate, honestly), its information on the naduri and alilo is straight-up wrong. The term "alilo" is used to mean any Christmas song (while "Krist'e Aghsdga" is the equivalent for Easter vocal songs). Meanwhile, the naduri is not an every day work song: it is reserved for events called "nadi" where many households, sometimes an entire village, gather together to complete a single greater task (such as harvesting crops or building a new barn) in a single day — the "words" themselves are not imitative but rather wordless vocals, and each section represents a different stage or task in the work at hand, with the music gradually accelerating towards the end of the work and the sumptuous feast prepared by the rest of the people present. (It's very specific.)

Could someone with access to print or academic materials, such as those used the write the article on Georgian music, please correct this gaff and prevent the further dissemination of such nonsense?! HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]