Philip Peters wrote:

>I almost never get my definitons straight but I thought that *monody*
is a
>dominant melodic voice over a harmonic *accompaniment* (well...)
whereas
>*polyphony* is when each *voice* has their own rhythmic line (unlike
in
>*homphony*).

Well, I'll be brief. We cannot say for sure when polyphony made its
debut in
the western musical scene, but we can reasonably think of how it
happened.
Imagine two monks start singing two distinct Gregorian Chants at the
same
moment and you'll have an idea of what early polyphony was. A pain?
Well, close
to. It took quite a few centuries to complete the process, during which
polyphony became a wonderful creature. It took much less time to
disappear:
instrumental polyphony went in from the main door, wide open. What
happened
since then is a small thing compared to the power of the "revolution of
polyphony".

In this context the terms "Monody" and "Polyphony" were minted.
Etymologically
they are derived from Ancient Greek and are antonyms.

"Monody with instrumental accompaniment" only refers to a short period
of time.
It describes the decline of polyphony (decline highlighted by the use of
the
term "monody") in favour of instrumental polyphony (accompaniment).


>*the same note or the octave*?? I thought this was *unisono*.  As long
as
>the *rhythm* is the same for each *voice* it's *homophony* or so I've
>always been led to believe.

"Unisono" is the Ancient Roman (latin) term for "homophony", which is
derived
from the Ancient Greek "Homos" + "phone" (same + sound).

Roberto Strappafelci