Talk:Texture (music)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Music theory (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Shorter definitions[edit]

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)


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)

Guido Adler[edit]

Which work by Adler was consulted? Hyacinth 22:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


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?
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)

Texture articles introductions[edit]

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)


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)


The assertion that heterophony is a texture in which voices "may play substantially different melodies" is contradicted by some very high authorities:

"The simultaneous statement, especially in improvised performance, of two or more different versions of what is essentially the same melody." (Harvard Concise Dictionary of Music and Musicians, p 298)

"...the simultaneous use of slightly or elaborately modified versions of the same melody my two (or more) performers" (Harvard Dictionary of Music, p 383)

"... certain instruments would embellish the melody simultaneously with its plain performance by others in the ensemble, thus creating heterophony." (Grout, A History of Western Music 3rd ed, pp 4-5)

"The principle of heterophony consists in a melody's being employed simultaneously in several voices, but in such a way that the melodic line of the leading voice -- which has the 'Theme' -- is not duplicated in the other voices -- which play round the fundamental line freely and vary it, without, however, wandering so far from it that one may say they have melodic independence." (Reese, Music in the Middle Ages, p 50)

"Each participant realizes the melodic idea according to personal taste and ability and to the special conditions of voices and instruments ... Such heterophony is ... neither polyphonic nor harmonic ..." (Sachs, The Rise of Music in the Ancient World, p 48)

If the melodies were "substantially different", the texture would be polyphonic. If someone has a decent authority for the former definition, it should still be specified that the meaning given here is the usual sense of the word. Fenneck (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move: "Musical scale" → "Scale (music)"[edit]

I have initiated a formal RM action to move Musical scale to Scale (music). Contributions and comments would be very welcome; decisions of this kind could affect the choice of title for many music theory articles.

NoeticaTea? 00:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)