Talk:Fauxbourdon

Fauxbourdon 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 articles

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Untitled

Perhaps an explanation should be given as to why the two word version of "Faux bourdon" was chosen (i.e., because that is how it appears in the earliest manuscripts) instead of the more common single word version? People on a musicological society list were interested in this choice. (This edit replaces a poorly worded previous Talk of mine) --Myke Cuthbert 14:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it should be one word (fauxbourdon); I rarely if ever see it done the other way. Unless I hear any objection, I will move the article. Thanks for pointing it out, I had forgotten about this (as well as finishing writing the article ... ) Antandrus (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw -- Antandrus -- more and more I wonder if this was the right move; if "be bold! be brave!" applies not just to authors but articles, I am beginning to think that the way the word appears in 15th c. manuscripts might be a better way of describing the term, despite recent musicological discourse.

"Proto"-fauxbourdon can now be located in 14th century France and Italy. The French side has been discussed in the writings of Francesco Facchin and the Italian side (and a summary) in my diss.; I'd add this information to the article, but even discussing the French side passes the line of original research. --Myke Cuthbert 04:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More and more that I think of it, whoever first put the article at "Faux bourdon" was bold in bucking the trend of secondary scholarship by following the primary sources instead. I think advocating for the move was really my first mistake (of many) on WP; I'd now consider the move back an improvement. sigh. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that most of these sources existed before the standardization of spelling, and the fact that turning two linked words into a compound word is a well-established linguistic phenomenon-- I think that in a modern context such as Wikipedia, a single-word title is quite appropriate, given that the word is rarely separated in modern texts. Or to put it more simply: what will people search for to find this article? 169.237.142.236 (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Falsobordone

I just found out falosbordone redirects here! I believe that's incorrect, as despite falsobordone's etymological similarity to fauxbourdon, it is my understanding that they are quite different. Falsobordone uses primarily root position triads instead of first inversion ones. There is usually four parts, all written out, often with a repeated recitation on a static chord. I believe there's a whole Grove entry on it. I'd be happy to write a short article on it and change the redirect. Any thoughts? --MarkBuckles 09:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct, and a redirect of falsobordone to here is wrong. As far as I know they are unrelated except in name. Thanks for noticing! Antandrus (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Created a stub on falsobordone based mostly on Grove info. Feel free to add your expertise! -- MarkBuckles 11:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely unrelated since they both involve a (somewhat) mechanical process to generate homophonic harmony from a given melody. But certainly deserving of separate pages. --Myke Cuthbert 04:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bourdon (Insect) and Faux-Bourdon (Insect)

It might be interesting to know if the common french name of the male bee 'faux-bourdon', meaning a false drone (insect), goes back to the 15th century. If so, naming the new style of musical accompanyment accordingly may have been an act of intellectual wit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.247.172 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My dictionnaire Hachette de la langue francaise (1980 ed) says that bourdon is formed by onomatapoeia - the English equivalent would be calling a bumble bee a hummer. The usage of faux bourdon for the male bee - the drone - is listed before the musical meanings, but this might just be a consequence of making a tidy entry for the word in the dictionary. I will try to find out which meaning was the original one, but so far the evidence suggests it was the insect before the chorister.Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

According to Wright (2006), I quote: "Three-voice faburden originated in England and was carried into France in the fifteenth century by the followers of the English kings. Soon Continental composers developed a related style called fauxbourdon."
Ulmanor (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faburden vs. Fauxbourdon vs. Falsobordone

Both Grove Online and Oxford History of Western Music seem to treat these as three distinct styles. Either Faburden should have its own article instead of redirecting here, or Falsobordone should be moved back into this one. Regardless, the differences between them should be made more clear, and IMO they should all be mentioned near the top of the article. Not sure if I'll have time to address the issue properly, I'm not an expert in this field and would have to do a fair amount of reading. 169.237.142.236 (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fauxbourdon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050825215322/http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Blair/Courses/MUSL242/dufay98.htm to http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Blair/Courses/MUSL242/dufay98.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]