Talk:Texture (music)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Shorter definitions
I've shortened the definitions of these terms somewhat, because I think that polyphony and monody at least ought to have their own articles - I've moved the bulk off to their own pages, therefore (my reasoning is similar to that I explained at Talk:music terminology. Thing is: I'm not sure exactly what should be done with monophony (which I'm pretty sure can't have a non-stub written about it), heterophony (about which I have barely any idea as to whether a non-stub could be written) and homophony (about which I think a non-stub could be written, but I'm not sure). For the time being, I've left the former two as redirects to here and restored homophony, but I don't know if this is best. I am pretty sure, however, that polyphony and monody ought to have their own articles as well as being given (brief) definitions here. --Camembert
- The word Polyphonic redirects here but should redirect to Polyphony instead. Wahoofive 22:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Heterophony can fill a large article as there are many types or techniques and they are used throughout the world. Hyacinth 23:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Onomatopoeic
This article references "onomatopoeic". Hyacinth 07:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it doesn't say what it is, so the reference is useless for the reader, since the linked article doesn't discuss it as a musical texture. I've never heard this term used in reference to musical texture. Another of your obscure reference works? —Wahoofive (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Think about it. It might be metaphorical. :) Hyacinth 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Guido Adler
Which work by Adler was consulted? Hyacinth 22:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction
First, its preferrable that the introduction be phrased "Texture is" rather than "the term texture". Second, I'm not sure if the difference between the supposedly "informal" term "in music" and the more precise term used "in musicology" is real or the way its described in the article. Hyacinth 07:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, the style of the intro is better now. I think we need to figure out a better wording so that the content of the previous version can be kept. The two books I put in the sources section (which you moved to 'further reading') are references for the 'musicological' use of the word. I don't know of any references for the informal use, but I have heard the word used informally. J Lorraine 00:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Which content of the previous version do you want to be kept?
- See WP:CITE.
- What I mean is that I don't think that terms such as polyphony are "musicological" while "rough" is not only "vague" but also describes some other type of quality in a different kind of music. Hyacinth 02:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Texture articles introductions
I think we should standardize the introductions to articles about musical texture. I present my version for criticism and comment. Texture articles should begin with "In music, [whichever] is a texture [description of the number of voices and their relationship]." Hyacinth 10:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like a fine idea to me. I'm not able to spend a lot of time on this at the moment, hopefully I'll come back later & figure out how to word what it was I wanted to keep in the intro (from the discussion above this one). J Lorraine 09:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Melisma
There's some information in Melisma that might be appropriate to include here. (Not my area of expertise, though.) Askari Mark (Talk) 02:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- What Mark really means is the deprecated article Melismatic, which could be considered a texture in contrast to neumatic and syllabic. Not a certainty, but it should be mentioned somewhere (other than Neume), since the terms are mentioned with some regularity. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
