Talk:Polyphony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

Contents

[edit] Split this article

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Expansion needed

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)

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

[edit] Polyphony in traditional African music?

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)

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


[edit] Should this article have a trivia section??

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)

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)