Talk:Classical music/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Name again

European classical music...not good enough. United States is not European, so does it mean that, for example, works like Piston cannot be considered here? Should be renamed "Western classical music" or "Classical music of the Western tradition". Mandel 22:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Classical music of the sort we are discussing has gone global, and there are musicians of every nationality that perform or compose it. However, the tradition did originate in Europe. I would prefer the original "classical music," but I think that the disambig page that exists under that name is sufficient to steer interested parties to the article they are looking for. The debate over the name sort of degenerates into Political Correctness, and I think the less time spent on that, the better. --HK 15:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not a matter of political correctness, rather finding the right terminology for the music style. The title is certainly confusing to a layperson, me for one. The term "European classical music" is obviously problematic - it suggests "classical music" has somehow died away as it moves away from Europe. "Western classical music" is much less ambiguous, covers a much broader base, and specifies the engendering as clearly. Maybe "Classical music in the Western tradition" will make it even clearer. Mandel 00:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The term 'European classical music', is fine, considering the given constraints that one finds with the term 'classical music'. The classical compositions by composers outside Europe are fundamentally rooted in the harmonic tradition of European tradition. Hence the best compromise is 'European classical music'. Besides arriving at a COMPROMISE is never a perfect task. Several nuances would be left out and that is precisely why it is called as compromise. Robin klein 18:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine...it would have been much better to hold a vote of sorts for this sort of thing, but if you fellas have no objections, I'll shut up. I just need to reflect the opinions of some two people who have been browsing this article at random reflecting this irritant to me; as I'm a registered user and I agree wholeheartedly with them I brought this out. Whether your so-called nuance is covered in my emended "Classical music in the Western tradition" is debatable, but I won't go on...If you guys feel this term is already the best compromise (which I hardly agree) then feel free to leave it as it is. Mandel 16:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: If you guys will not drop the "European" from classical music, how about "European-traditioned classical music" or "Classical Music in the European tradition"? Mandel 17:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

External links

The external links are getting out of hand. Too many of them are just spamlinks to sites selling classical-music CDs. I'm going to start pruning soon. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless a site has a substantial amount of encyclopedic-quality information on the topic, it should go. Spamlinks grow in Wikipedia like weeds. Antandrus (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, now that Svelyka has reverted my deletes and restored many of the links, I hope he'll come here to defend why we need links to MIDI files, minor discussion forums, and MP3 sales sites. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

As noted, your original "trimming" of external links was excessive. Even now I would cater for additional quality links for a topic quite broad and diverse. The existing sites, save "Chopin's", offer introduction to sources that offer numerous mp3's and midifiles which the eager enthusiast could very well embrace rather than just reading literature (which even in its current revision still appears controversial) of it. I tried to delete links out there to make a sale more than offer info. As for the forum, agreed it's not major, but it still covers an entry into discussion for a multitude of topics that are listed in this article, and I thought an easy link from it wouldn't hurt. If a better forum surfaces however, I wouldn't hesitate to replace it. BTW...it's "she". Svelyka 06:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, mademoiselle. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do not consider to put the website kunstderfuge.com instead of classicalarchives.com? I think this last site is too difficoult to navigate (you have there to login). The first site (kunstderfuge.com) is totally free and the files are preatty more and of better quality. It also contains piano rolls. The site also claims to be the main resource of Classical Music MIDI files. Please evaluate to put it on WikiPedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.57.113 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 13 October 2006

Also, I'd like to know why you keep removing Classical Forums (http://www.classicalforums.com) which is an important, free growing classical music community with very interesting articles on classical music written by professional musicians (which is absolutely an unique content related to classical music) when instead there are listed evident commercial websites such as Naxos and others. I have put Classical Forums back again, if you want to remove it, please let me know your motivation. Thank you. --Fablau 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It does look OK to me as well: non-commercial, with discussions of subjects pertinent to classical music and culture. I notice that contributors even include external links to further reading in their articles. One question, though: you say that the material there is written by "professional musicians"; how do you know this? Admittedly, I didn't spend much time there, but I saw no author attribution for the articles I read. If true, it would mean something (what a concept: articles on music written by people who actually know something about the subject!). +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; just checked back there. I didn't realize the authors' names were linked to their bios. Silly me. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good! I am glad you agree.--Fablau 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wanted: Someone willing to add music

This article, and all its subarticles (Baroque music, Renaissance music, 'etc) are desperately lacking for actual music. I maintain a list of full-length songs available on wikipedia - Wikipedia:Sound/list. There are tons of songs there that could be used to illustrate these articles, if someone knowledge about hte topic is willing to do it. Raul654 09:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Eras

I propose the following eras for European classical music (with approximate dates):

Early Christian
Plainchant 476-??
Carolingian ??-800

Medieval
Early Medieval 800-1000
Late Medieval 1000-1200

Gothic
Early Gothic (or Ars Antiqua) 1200-1300
Late Gothic (or Ars Nova) 1300-1400

Renaissance
Early Renaissance 1400-1500
Late (or High) Renaissance 1500-1600

Baroque
Early Baroque 1600-1700
Late Baroque 1700-1750

Classical and Romantic
Classical 1750-1800
Romantic 1800-1900

Post-Romantic
20th Century 1900-2000
Contemporary 2000 - today

Eroica 16:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Generally good but what's the need to subdivide each era? Of course the article on Baroque music (or the other individual periods) might have such subdivisions, but those should be discussed on those individual pages. Were you planning to incorporate these into {{History of European art music}}? I wouldn't. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Dates of classical music eras redirects here

I'm not an expert, so I'm not sure if there's anything to merge from that article. If anyone can have a look, that would be great. The article had to be redirected here because of an AFD debate. Johnleemk | Talk 10:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Implications and Bias

Article makes biased claims about the superior complexity of European classical music, without making note of the many ways in which it is simpler than other musics. It also implies that certain types of complexity found in classical musics are unique to classical musics. Further, it asserts that all non-classical musics are "mere adjuncts" to other forms of entertainment.

Until this bias is removed, the article will remain essentially an advertisement for a music that already has too many grandiose claims for itself in the first place.

unsigned comment by User:151.198.157.245 —Wahoofive (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Where exactly does the article make the claim that its complexity is "superior"? Antandrus (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

Can we remove the POV tag now? The anon editor who put it on has shown no interest in discussing how to improve it. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. If anyone thinks the article has POV problems, please discuss them here. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

I liked the structure of the article, but I would add some examples. Cerealmix

OK; for example, what? --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Eliminate hatnote

The hatnote on top explaining that this article is about European art music and directing users to other articles is a holdover from when this article was called "Classical music". No one would come to an article called "European classical music" expecting anything other than what we have here. I propose removing it. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Worthless sentences

These sentences do not contain interesting information:

The use of notation is an effective vehicle for transmitting classical music because all active participants in the classical music tradition are able to read music and are schooled in both historical and contemporary performance practices. Normally, this ability comes from formal training, which usually begins with learning to play an instrument, and sometimes continues with instruction in music theory and composition. However, there are many passive participants in classical music who enjoy it without being able to read it or perform it.

If someone does not already know the above information, he is probably less than 12 years old.

Rintrah 14:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are numerous adults in this world who don't know this information. In the developed world, you're undoubtedly right, but Wikipedia is not just for the developed world. In any case, this article ought to discuss the position of European classical music in society, how it is transmitted and composed, etc. Tuf-Kat 15:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

To "Rintrah": You motivated me to try to do better. I see this as part of a "man from Mars" problem which is quite widespread here: explaining things with the assumption that the reader has absolutely zero knowledge of any aspect of the subject. See if you like what I wrote better. (I reformatted that paragraph in your comment to make it stand out better; hope you don't mind.) --ILike2BeAnonymous 01:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I like your amendments. Yes, the "man from Mars" problem is prevalent in wikipedia. There is much more interesting information that should be provided in this article (including the history, performance, etc.), but I am too lazy to put in any work.

Rintrah 14:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Applause between movements

I'd like to add something that's interesting to the article, not sure where, which is to explain that the current taboo against applauding between movements of a symphony didn't exist at the time when most of these works were written. In fact, audiences often loudly demonstrated between movements, either approvingly or not, and sometimes even called for the just-played movement to be encored. There are many written accounts of this (the last I remember was from a biography of Berlioz). And of course there are the somewhat more well-known incidents, like the near-riot that accompanied the first performance of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. However, the current ossified practice is widely believed to be the same as when this "revered" (damn, how I hate that word!) music was created.

Anyone care to tackle this, or at least comment on this? --ILike2BeAnonymous 01:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll vouch for L2BA's historical acuity. Period quotes would improve this section. --Wetman 14:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Description of Romantic period

Currently the article has this to say:

Romantic, 1815–1950 a period which codified practice, expanded the role of music in cultural life and created institutions for the teaching, performance and preservation of works of music.

Can't we do better than this? This description is totally milquetoast, actually worse than nothing, in that it says essentially nothing but takes a lot of words to do so. Anyone want to take a crack at restating this, to include something of the essence of romantic music? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 00:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

== I would like to teach Classical Music someday. I found your entry nice. Thanks for collaborating. --Robert Waly 00:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this description should be fleshed out quite a bit, though I'm not sure I am the person to do it. First of all, there ought to be something about changing forms: cyclical treatment of themes and the "tone poem," for instance, were both devised by Liszt during this time. Also huge advances were made in instrumental technique (viz. Paganini, Chopin, Lizst). Programmatic music became much more "illustrative," as in the Symphonie Fantastique of Berlioz. This should be touched upon, at least a little bit! Finally, I don't think the Romantic period lasted quite as long as the article implies. Brahms is usually considered "Late-Romantic," and what can be said of Nielsen, Rachmaninoff, Sibelius, etc. who began writing during the "romantic period" and continued using its harmonies long into the 20th century?

Link to "Ursatz" website

I visit Ursatz nearly every day to find out whose birthday it is and who died, too. I've never had a commercial pop-up ever on their site. What was the pop-up that you said happened? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.84.72.181 (talk • contribs) 10 May 2006.

To explain: I followed the link to investigate whether it is a commercial site. When I did so the site's home page popped up a commercial, complete with pictures of certain pretty ladies in interesting poses. I use Firefox; the site presumably tried to pop up the commercial in a new window, but I have tabbed browsing set so that it just opened a new tab and then resized my browser. This explains the slightly annoyed tone of my edit summary, for which I apologise. When I eventually got to the home page it appeared to be just links to Google searches. I now see that it lists composers who were born or died today. The popup is the clinching decider for me. However, I haven't seen the popup again since, so maybe it only does it on your first visit? Perhaps I just struck lucky? However, I still am not convinced of the utility of the site in the context of Wikipedia. Have you considered helping Wikipedia by contributing to our daily lists? It's not exhaustive, yet, (neither is Ursatz, I notice) but you could be of assistance here! :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 15:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ursatz.com does not cite the sources of its information. It appears to be the personal website of Eric Chernov and under the complete control of that single individual. Thus, it does not meet the reliable source guidelines and could not be cited as a source for facts in Wikipedia.

The site has very little information. It does not give information on the birth or death dates of any composer except those that happened to be born or die on the day you access the site (which to me says this feature is about building traffic and encouraging repeat visits rather than promulgating information). It does not have any information about the composers except their dates (when you click on their name, it simply launches a Google search on that name).

http://www.ursatz.com is thin on information, has a "make a donation" button, and advertises "Ads by Google."

For the record, I did not encounter popups when I visited the site.

The site is probably not very commercial, i.e. it is probably not very successful--it looks like a self-promotional attempt to make a small amount of money on the side with very little effort. I am not sure who keeps reinserting the link and why, but it would certainly not surprise me if it were being done by someone with a direct interest in trying to promote the site. It is not a very notable site, as shown by the fact that a Google search on "www.ursatz.com" shows no hits other than the site itself.

The value of this link to someone with an interest in classical music is very low. It should not be in the article. I say it's linkspam and I intend to remove it whenever I see it, unless the quality of the website increases enormously (has much more information and cites the sources for that information). I suggest that unless 4.84.72.181 can gain consensus here in talk that the link is valuable to the article, he or she should stop reinserting it. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Name to a song

Can anyone tell me the name or type of music to this song. -- Je suis _t\^c 23:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Formal Music" and French Classicism on this page

Removed new additions by Sobolewski, as the term "formal music" is not used in America to the best of my knowledge, but either way, further discussion of the term "Classical Music" belongs on the Classical music page, or the Classical music era page, not here (unless I am mistaken). --MarkBuckles 23:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Please see Talk:Classical music for a current discussion about two pages moves involving this page. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Move completed as determined by consensus

See Talk:Non-Western_classical_music#Requested_move for 7-2 consensus. Wangry 11:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Classical music (of the European tradition) in different countries

Should we add more countries or just delete all of these? And why on earth German classical music isn't included?!! Masahiko 19:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at russian editing tradition on russian wiki classical music [[1]]....

use LINGVO to translate...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butamironin (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 

Timeline

The timeline has a bit of a gap between Josquin and Palestrina (although there was plenty of music during that period). My nomination for filling the gap would be Thomas Tallis. Bluewave 10:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Odd sentence

"For those who desire to become performers, any musical instrument is practically impossible to learn to play at a professional level if it, or at least a similar instrument, is not learned in childhood."

How true is this really? I'm pretty sure, for example that a cellist who starts playing at age 8 and who starts playing the recorder at age of 14 has maybe even more chance becoming a professional than most of 8 years olds. 8 years olds have 6 six years advantage, 14 year old can read music, understands music theory, has more discipline, propably has better ear. And how similar these instruments really are? The sentence should be modified, IMO.

One of the best piano jazz performer, Franco d'Andrea, started playing piano at age 17 and ... me too, I am a professional performer. :) --Alegreen 22:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

...although of course the phrase "practically impossible" doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I have to question the opening introduction of this article, which comes across to me as biased and not written in an encyclopaedic style. There are many statements within the introduction that are not referenced; and it feels more journalistic than encyclopaedic. I propose that the introduction should be changed, because there really do seem to be problems with it at the moment. I'd like to change it but see what others suggest first, because I'm not sure what should replace the current introduction. Feedback appreciated. Madder 14:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening Sentence and Definition

I hate this opening sentence: "Classical music is the sweeping term applied to the musical tradition that is untethered and almost diametrically opposed to the popular music of contemporary culture." Here's why...

1. It's narrow. Maybe classical art music was diametrically opposed to popular music in 1960, but composers like Michael Daugherty, John Zorn and Laurie Anderson, not to mention Charles Ives and Josquin des Prez, strongly integrate popular music into their writing. Are we not including these composers in the umbrella of classical music? If not, then what do we call them? For that matter, how do we decide what's really "opposed" to popular music?

2. It's misleading. To my eyes, that sentence says that classical music was either born or is sustained as a rebellion against popular music, which certainly is not the case.

If we're trying to represent classical music as music which is intrinsically anti-popular culture, fine, but that's not the type of music that the article represents currently and it's not what I think the lead line of this article should paint. It would be much more encyclopedic to define classical music in its own terms, rather than in terms of comparison to pop. I'm not sure what exactly the solution to this problem is, but we as a community should be able to do better than this. SingCal 07:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just read this section and agree wholeheartedly. For a reader who knew nothing about classical music, this introduction would leave them none the wiser. I turned to Scholes' Oxford Companion, to see what he would say. He gives three meanings of classical: the first is essentially the music of the classical era (end of 16th to end of 18th century, he says); secondly, "as a label to distinguish what is obviously of more or less established and permanent value from what is ephemeral"; thirdly, "amongst less educated people [...it] is used in antithesis to 'Popular'"!

I'm not sure that Scholes is any help, but at least his definitions are more illuminating (if POV) than the current article. I suggest that the definition needs to incorporate the elements which are usually present in classical music:

• It is composed by someone who has undergone a particular training in its traditional forms.
• It is written down in a well-defined notation.
• The work is defined by the notated version, rather than a particular performance of it.
• It is underpinned by a set of rules and conventions of modality, harmony, etc.
• It is intended to be performed at concerts in which the audience pays serious attention to the work.
• It does have some pretensions to Scholes' second definition of having a permanent, rather than ephemeral, value.
• It tends to be centred on particular kinds of instruments and particular "sound pallettes"

There are no absolute distinctions, and there are, indeed, many examples that do not conform to the above. However, even something like Cage's 4'33" only makes any sense because it exists in the context of the above framework - it wouldn't do well in the pop charts or at a heavy metal concert. Bluewave 09:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that there are problems with the opening (see 'Neutral Point of View' above). But it's all very well saying there are problems with it, suggestions need to be made as to what it should be. Madder 18:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair point! My suggestion would be:

• Lose the first sentence (and the "undethered" word) altogether.
• Promote the 2nd paragraph to the start of the article as a better intro.
• Improve the style of the old first para and particularly reword the ambiguous bit about exclusivity (which can be read as though it is the champions who accuse it of exclusivity).
• Mention that it is based on a written tradition.
• And I'd take out the bit about nostalgia which is a bit POV I think. Music from 1550 (for instance) doesn't invoke nostalgia in me, at least.

Classical music is a broad, somewhat imprecise term, referring to music produced in, or rooted in the traditions of, European art, ecclesiastical and concert music, encompassing a broad period from roughly 1000 to the present day. The central norms of this tradition, according to one school of thought, developed between 1550 and 1820, focusing on what is known as the common practice period.

This music evokes classical traditions, focuses on formal styles, invites technical and detailed deconstruction and criticism, and demands focused attention from the listener. It is written down using a formal notation and a work of classical music is usually defined by the notated version, rather than a particular performance of it. This music is associated with, and often compared to, fine art and high culture, sometimes leading to accusations of haughtiness and exclusivity being levelled at its enthusiasts. Nevertheless, many "classical" pieces were the popular music of their time, and have remained popular to this day. Though periods of resurgence come and go, the public taste for and appreciation of formal music of this type has generally waned through the later part of the 20th century and into the present millennium.

Just my suggeston. Still not great, but an improvement (I think). Bluewave 15:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty good; I disagree with the "waning" part (might be true in the U.S., especially outside of the major urban centers, but it's certainly not true in east Asia and lots of Europe); the 1550 year troubles me a bit, since the "central norms" -- as far as large-scale formal structure, voice-leading, harmony, instrumentation, and just about everything else goes -- developed over a much longer time, without a clear starting date. If we're pointing specifically to development of functional tonality, 1550 is as good a break as any, but that's a minor quibble anyway. Antandrus (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was dubious about both those points too, But focused on the main structure. I think the waning would need to be backed up by facts. Perhaps it needs to be worded around the public appreciation for classical music being massively surpassed by its huge growth in appetite for popular music in the late 20th century. The 1550 looks a bit at odds with the 1000 in the previous sentence and I don't like "according to one school of thought". That part does little to shed light on the subject for someone not already familiar. What about something along the lines of:

Classical music is a broad, somewhat imprecise term, referring to music produced in, or rooted in the traditions of, European art, ecclesiastical and concert music, encompassing a broad period from roughly 1000 to the present day. The central norms of this tradition developed throughout this period but reached their heights of complexity and development in the period between 1550 and 1820: what is known as the common practice period.

Bluewave 16:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I did some quick Google research on proportions of people who attended a classical music concert in the last 12 months. Results: New Zealanders 11% [2], Australia 9% [3], Norway 35% [4] and Britain 12% [5]. Also some statisctics from the EU [6]. Unfortunately, these are all snapshots, not trends. Other stuff that I could find was very anecdotal. Big symphony orchestras certainly seen to be in trouble, but that is only part of classical music. Bluewave 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! I think it may take a bit of work to get some sources together ... can't do it now, I'm at work. That 40% of concert ticket sales in Italy were for classical concerts correlates with what I thought; that interest remains strongest in the regions where the music actually developed (i.e. not the US). At any rate, nice work on the lead; it's getting there. :) Antandrus (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)