"Homophonic" or melody and accompaniment

[reith]

A discussion arose, starting with Beethoven's Fur Elise and moving on to Chopin's Nocturnes, let's say the famous Eb one.

Do these count as "monody with an accompaniment", or homophony (my view) since it is just a harmonised melody even if the harmony is elaborated in an accompaniment?

[ttw]

Originally Posted by reith

A discussion arose, starting with Beethoven's Fur Elise and moving on to Chopin's Nocturnes, let's say the famous Eb one.

Do these count as "monody with an accompaniment", or homophony (my view) since it is just a harmonised melody even if the harmony is elaborated in an accompaniment?

The boundaries between these are not sharp.

[chckn8r]

I'd argue that there IS a melody and accompaniment.

The melody in Beethoven's Fur Elise, if played by a competent pianist, can be brought out quite well.

The same is with Chopin's piano works. Remember, that Chopin himself, was a killer pianist and was always wanting to challenge himself and other pianists (look at all his works that juxtapose odd/even meters in both hands - people thought this was so radical at the time). He was a technician - his Etudes were written as practice exercises for his works although they are played as performance pieces.

He essentially challenged pianists to view the piano as an instrument that was on par with an orchestra - writing works for two hands that one might think should be played by three or four - not being one to try and simplify or reduce an "orchestration" for the instrument.

So what you get is lush arrangements for two hands - most people plunking the pieces out hear the works as arpeggiated chords or elaborate accompaniment with no melody. BUT, there is a melody there, and the pianist needs to be competent enough to emphasize melody in the midst of thick accompaniment figures.

D

[MaestroX]

I wouldn't call Beethoven's Fur Elise for example homophonic in the slightest as the definition of homophony is: "all parts moving rhythmically at the same rate".

I can understand your confusion as until I found our the term: melody dominated homphony, I didn't quit know what to label such pieces.

[reith]

Thanks for the comments.

This arose from tutorial on 'textures' which crops up in Grade 5 (upwards) aural tests where off-the-cuff analysis is required. The examiner plays a piece, the candidate has to name the period it comes from and if necessary describe the texture. Along with your comments it seems best to describe such pieces as 'melody with accompaniment' rather than homophonic or monodic.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by reith

A discussion arose, starting with Beethoven's Fur Elise and moving on to Chopin's Nocturnes, let's say the famous Eb one.

Do these count as "monody with an accompaniment", or homophony (my view) since it is just a harmonised melody even if the harmony is elaborated in an accompaniment?

As TTW said, the definitions are not well established.

Monophony is a single melody line, like Gregorian Chant
Heterophony is a single melody line, accompanied by a varied/elaborated form of itself.
Polyphony is multiple melodic lines, like a Bach Fugue.
Homophony is "melody with accompaniment".

However, a few caveats:
Monophony usually refers to chant, or unaccompanied folk melodies (folk including what we call world or ethnic musics).

Heterophony SHOULD be melody with accompaniment, but it didn't work out that way. Plato actually coined the term but in any case, it got used to refer to music where the melody plays with an ornamented version of itself popular in non-western musics. So unfortunately the good term for melody with accompaniment got taken!

Polyphony is usually associated specifically with counterpoint. In a sense though, much of what we consider homophony is actually polyphonic as well, therefore:

Homophony is a specific type of polyphony in which one voice plays a predominant role (the melody) and the others play a subsidiary role (the accomp) (which should of course be heterophony - stupid theorists!).

Homorhythmic refers to a for of polyphony in which the music moves in, or largely in the same rhythm - but distinct equal parts are still considered. In instances where a melody is harmonized in the same rhythm, you have homorhythmic homophony.

I don't know if you actually meant Monody above or Melody, but Monody has two meanings - one is synonymous with Monophony (thus I hear it rarely used in this context) and the other is the Monody of early Baroque/Late Renaissance. Monody is in fact, Homophony. But, Monody is typically used to refer specifically to music from the Early Baroque, esp. Italian Opera/Song. Homophony is used for stuff after that.

Generally speaking, we use "homophony" to refer to all textures that are melody with accompaniment in the later Baroque (from Vivaldi on - Purcell might be borderline), Classical, and Romantic periods, that are not specific Polyphony (or monophonic in nature). So the pieces you cite above are examples of homophony. The Kyrie from Mozart's Requiem (which is a double fugue), and the Witch Canon from one of Haydn's String Quartets would be considered Polyphony proper.

So in an odd sense, the major forms of texture went:
500-1100 Monophony
1100-1500 Polyphony (culminating in 16th century counterpoint)
1600-1675ish Monody
1675-1750ish Polyphony (culminating in 18th century counterpoint)
1725ish - Homophony - melody with accompaniment

Again, Monody and Homophony are really specific types of polyphony. The subsidiary voices in Monody are typically more contrapuntal than that of homophony (which is more chordal) though it may also be homorhythmic (like in the rolled chords on harpsichord accompanying a song). Homophony accompaniments can also be contrapuntal and homorhythmic, but in general, the polyphonic ones are less polyphonic than those of the 1600s.

To me, it's kind of unfortunate that we're still stuck in this homophony phase. Most modern pop music is still homophonic, and in the case of a lot of pop music, all the parts are often homorhythmic, and in some cases, the accompaniment is heterophonic.

One might view some music, where the drums, bass, guitar, and voice all play in the same key (ok, drums potentially excepted) but don't play the same patterns - i.e. all riffing on a E chord for example, as "modern polyphony" or a form of "polyphonic heterophony". But since the vocal melody is usually still the focus, it's basically melody with accompaniment.

Best,
Steve

[Peter Bolton]

Originally Posted by stevel

To me, it's kind of unfortunate that we're still stuck in this homophony phase.

Not necessarily so, bearing in mind the use of multiple melodic lines that are not used polyphonically. This became very prevalent in the Romantic era and is at its most obvious in operatic ensembles where the different characters are singing their own melodies without any apparent regard for each other. An early and well known example of dual melody is Mendelssohn's Song without Words Op67.2. This begins with a strongly rhythmic arpeggiated melody that instantly identifies the piece. After four bars, Mendelssohn introduces a second smoother melody above it and later on playing both melodic lines together with one hand becomes quite a tricky operation.
This kind of multiple homophony has left a very rich legacy.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Peter Bolton

This became very prevalent in the Romantic era and is at its most obvious in operatic ensembles where the different characters are singing their own melodies without any apparent regard for each other.

And that's called "cacophony" ;-)

Steve

[Peter Bolton]

Originally Posted by stevel

And that's called "cacophony" ;-)

Steve

I like that - it's Verdi in his Green period!