:
Posted by Keith on August 07, 1998 at 17:05:46:
In Reply to: Re: polyphony versus monodic posted by Giacomo on July 01, 1998 at 23:44:39:
: :
: : : Hmmm... since this is the Rennaissance port...
: : : HOw about the polyphonic versus the monodic style of comoposition?
: : : Opinions, pros and cons, preferences?
: : Does it have to be versus? They each have their place and each have their beauty. As a performer, audiences are surprised and awed by the complexity of the polyphonic. They also enjoy the denseness of Marenzio and Palestrina. However, the simpler, "monodic" style of the late Renaissance English composers (e.g., Jones) really causes audiences to react with a sigh or a tear, because they can aurally understand the "tunefulness" of the simpler style.
: You are quite right, it does not have to be versus. The composers themselves, such as Monteverdi, often wrote in both styles.
: Wasn't monophonic composition kind of an important pre-requisite for polyphonic composition?
Most books I've seen about 15th and 16th century polyphonic
polyphony start with monodic composition, and
then progress to two parts, then 3,4, etc.
The thing that amazes me is that so many of the greats
from the renaissance had such great polyphonic
skills, and yet many of them were only trained as singers,
so they had only really experienced one part
at a time instead of the contrapuntal textures
that keyboard players (also lutenists and harpers)
were used to dealing with all the time.