Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Polyphony
I just finished Bernard Lewis's What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. I enjoyed the book very much -- many interesting insights. Among these was a lovely point that Lewis made about polyphony. Lewis has an extended discussion of the comparative lack of influence which Western music has had on Middle Eastern culture -- compared, that is, to Western art or Western literature. He then discusses the idea of polyphony as foundational not only to Western music, but to Western culture generally. In music, of course, polyphony means more than one melodic voice at the same time, interweaving with the others. Polyphonic music was at one time long ago officially banned from the Catholic liturgy, but men of genius like Palestrina were influential in rendering polyphony acceptable in, for example, magnificent settings of the Mass. The rest is polyphonic history (as the Masses of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, inter alia, attest). For me polyphonic music reaches its apotheosis not in the symphony (voices together) but in the concerto, where melodies are not only multiple, but clashing and rivalrous.
Lewis makes the elegant point that the concept of polyphony plays a central role not only in music but in many Western cultural forms. In literature, for example, in the form of novels and, more especially, plays. In sports, particularly the team sports which flourished first in England and then blossomed spectacularly in the United States. And -- and this is Lewis's real target -- in politics, where the ideal of polyphony is manifested in parliamentary political systems -- multiple competing voices which can seem at times cacophanous but in the end (God willing) produce the harmonies of the modern polity.
The advantage of monophony is that if there is a voice which it is especially important to hear, one maximizes the chances that it will be heard; polyphony makes this less likely and it is for this reason that religious leaders of the past, Muslim and Christian, were troubled by it. Now of course few people give polyphony a second thought. I recommend the book (which I listened to, in splendid monophonic solitude).
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/08/polyphony.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Polyphony is a relatively recent development, as musical developments go. It dates from the Renaissance, and from Northern Europe. An early form is still detectable in the beautiful Welch harmony mode popular in many traditional hymns.
All traditional European music is solo. The transition is clearest in the development of Gregorian chant. Even today, chant is still performed in its original monaural version, which is probably the mode of choice for the purists. During the Renaissance it was modified for choral use to produce those spectacular phrases that begin stark chant on a single continued note before flowering gloriously into harmony.
Even today, Irish music is strictly solo, although as a sort of modernist compromise limited harmony backup often appears on the chorus (the "Doo-Aahs" sort of thing). Preference for harmony is certainly understandable because there is so much magnificent polyphony in our musical tradition, but it is important to bear in mind that harmony comes at a cost -- a cost that the Irish among others were unwilling to pay.
A soloist can experiment with all sort of vocal styles -- e.g. trills, swoops, and every daring non-standard scales -- thereby using the full toolkit of vocal production but the harmonist has to stay at home. Trills, for instance, simply cannot be harmonized because they violate the strictures of the chromatic scale.