Talk:Fauxbourdon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)