Actually I spoke of polyphony. The definition in Grove Online is a bit
longer.
Actually the two terms mean much the same thing - at least in England. In
fact we tend to use the term polyphony more specifically to refer to music,
particularly sacred music, of the 16th century and earlier rather than to
an aspect of musical theory. For instance at university we studied
counterpoint not polyphony although we did exercises in the style of
Palestrina and Byrd. A rose by any other name etc.........
With all the flaws it may have, of a recording of almost 20 years old, I
must say that it has its good sides. The tempo may be a little high and,
indeed, it was recorded without the 5th-course bourdon. But what I hear
is
defenitely is polyphonic.
It has always been one of my favourite recordings and still is. I can't
comment on what you hear only what I hear.
Leaving aside the fact that de Visee apparently didn't use a bordon on
the 5th course anyway,
See what happens with the voice-leading if you leave off the fourth
course
bourdon....
I have never suggested that you should...........
Actually, I thought that we should not waste time discussing things which
you apparently are unable to hear.
I didn't realize that we were. There are more profitable things which we
might discuss. For example I asked a question which you haven't answered
yet. To whit ...
I wonder if you have tried to make sense of the Fantasia on p.112 of
Foscarini's book. After the statement and response of the opening motif it
is difficult to construct the counterpoint either when playing the music or
on paper.
But perhaps you have never tried to play it.
Monica
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
