Talk:Classical music/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Classical radio

Somebody keeps undoing the reference to classical radio as one of the "commercial" aspects of classical music. What's the problem here? Perfectly legitimate topic; it provides a link to a category of value to the reader; and there is nothing inflammatory or non-NPOV about the material being delete. Please explain yourself. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 04:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you're the one who keeps putting that stuff in, I was hoping you'd explain yourself. No, nothing "POV" or inflammatory about what you wrote: it's just, well, irrelevant. You seem to be saying—correct me if I'm wrong—that classical radio stations constitute a commercialization of classical music. While on the face of it there is some apparent merit to this, it really is just a trivial circumstance that is hardly worth noting. After all, there are radio stations that play many genres of music: this is nothing new, and only really indicates that there's an audience for all those types of music, as well as those who supply those audience's needs. Same thing would apply to recorded music.

I originally added that section, and the intent was to point out those cases where classical music is used for commercial purposes in selling something other than the music itself; hence Muzak, music in movies and television, etc. I guess the real answer is that the "commercialization" of classical music involved in distributing the music itself is so inherent that it's not worth discussing. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, I should add that some mention in the article of classical radio wouldn't be out of line. Not sure where that would belong, but it's certainly relevant to the topic, especially as an indicator of present-day interest in the genre. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

classical music vs "non-western classical music" is rubbish and POV

I do tend to agree that since most people think of classical music as Western or European classical music and not other kinds that having the classical music article be about European classical music is perhaps the best thing to do.

HOWEVER, I strongly disagree with the concept of "Non-Western classical music" as a link and article on because nothing really connects all the different types of "non-western classical music" in any sense other than their being "non-western". There is no such thing as "Non-Western classical music" as a genre and no reason for such an article to exist except to emphasize a western/eurocentric POV. It would be like having an article on "white people" and then an article on "non-white people" which would be clearly ridiculous. Or another example would be having an article called "Non-western art history" alongside "Western art history". Both of these examples show how POV and stupid that would be but "Non-western classical music" is no less stupid.

I suggest changing the title of "non-western classical music" to something like: "List of classical music genres" or "Classical Music (general)" and listing all music that is considered "classical" including "European classical music". The European classical music link should be shown as European classical music like so European classical music alongside other types not set aside as something special and unique while all "non-western" types are lumped together and set aside in a cleary POV and chauvinistic way that it comes across with the way the the articles are organized.

The top of the article should instead look something like: This article is about the genre of classical music or art music in the Western musical tradition. For a list of all classical music types see List of classical music. For the period of music in the late 18th century, see Classical period (music).

In order not to have duplicate discussion on this matter, please follow the discussion on: [[1]] Cpe1704tks 20:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the dictionary defines classical music as "Of or relating to music in the educated European tradition, such as symphony and opera, as opposed to popular or folk music."[2]. That's what the phrase means to lexicographers and virtually all people except academics and musicologists. Mozart's 40th symphony is not an example of "a genre of classical music," it is an example of classical music.

You may wish that the definition of classical music were more cosmopolitan, but it is not. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As can be seen from many different definitions and the very long archived discussions on this matter, there has been and are debates as to what "classical music" means. There are lots of dictionary entries for the term "classical music" alone that don't specifically refer to Europe.

In any case, my objection is not that most people think of "European" classical music when simply referring to classical music. That is probably a fact so having classical music be an article about European classical music is probably justified.

HOWEVER, my objection is to lumping everything else as "non-western classical music" and having an article entitled "non-western classical music". There is no such thing as "non-western classical music". This is my main objection. It would be like having an article called "non-white people" or "non-western art history".

To lump all "non-western classical music" in an article is simply wrong. Also please continue the discussion on the "Non-western classical music" talk page as I suggested.

[[3]]

Cpe1704tks 22:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that "non-western classical music" is a completely idiosyncratic non-topic and that the various forms of classical music that are not European-derived don't have anything in particular in common with each other. (Of course, neither do the dozen or so phyla of organisms covered by the rubric Invertebrate zoology... nor are Nonlinear systems a coherent group...) Dpbsmith (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay this is my proposal for the best way I believe the classical music articles should be handled.

1. The article "classical music" should remain as an article on European classical music as this is the most common usage for classical music to mean "European classical music".

2. The title of "Non-western classical music" article should be moved to: "List of classical music forms". This list will include all music forms that are sometimes named "classical" and the article description will be editted as appropriate to reflect that it is only a list.

3. The note on the top of the "classical music" article should now read: This article is about the genre of classical music or art music in the European musical tradition. For articles on other types of music called "classical" see the list of classical music forms. For the period of music in the late 18th century, see Classical period (music).

Any thoughts on this specific proposal?Cpe1704tks 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly sensible. Go for it. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about who decides/how you decide what is the most common usage. It might not be the correct place to ask this question. But I was reading all the discussions about naming various articles on Classical music, European/western classical music/list of classical music etc. Everybody keeps talking about 'the most common use'. When I was living in India, the most common meaning of the word 'classical music' was Indian classical music. When I said I learn classical music people understood it as Indian classical. They might ask Hindustani or Karnatik or just assume one or the other depending on which state I am in. But they never assumed I was learning Western classical. So my question is who decides what is common use? Are there guidelines for it?

I am not asking to start the name change debate again but just wanted a clarification. --Kaveri 20:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Classical music in the European or Western tradition?

Personally I feel that the common term for classical music should be described and introduced as "classical music in the European tradition" rather than "classical music in the Western tradition". Yes it is true that people outside of Europe have contributed to it. American, Australian, etc. musicians have and continue to transform "classical music". However, the TRADITION is still deeply rooted and based in EUROPE during the early modern Euopean period. That Americans, Australians etc carried on and developed this tradition doesn't make it any less EUROPEAN based.

Consider that Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc speak English and have contributed and further developed this language. However, would we not all agree that English should still be described as a EUROPEAN-based language rather than a WESTERN language?

I say it should be described as based on the European tradition not Western tradition.

Perhaps we can vote and discuss it. Nayra 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Western traditon* Nayra 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to vote in a poll, which I think is silly in this case; I'd just like to point out that while both terms are problematic—"Western" since it describes something in the west in relation to what?, and "European" since the classical music canon is by no means limited to that continent—I'm going to have to stick with "Western" for the reasons just given. "European" cuts a lot of significant players (let's see: Villa-Lobos, Chavez, Bernstein, Copland, Cage, Foss, Ives just for starters) out of the picture. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Someone else mentioned Australian classical composers. I don't know of any; who would those be? -IL2BA

As I mentioned before in my edit summary, I feel the term "European" is too limited. This article is about the classical music of Western culture. While it may have its origins in Europe, it has since developed with the traditions of the larger Western world. As ILike2BeAnonymous stated, "European" cuts out many significant individuals unnecessarily. See again how it is Western art, Western literature, Western canon, etc. As far as Australian classical composers: List of Australian composers -Wangry 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that people of non-European origin have contributed to European classical music does not however change the fact that the music tradition was developed almost completely in Europe. There are lots of people from all over the world who speak English. It doesn't mean it then became a non-European language because of that. Your point about Western art, Western literature doesn't fly because these are very broad terms. Western Music would be the equivalent term which I am fine with. But classical music was developed almost entirely in early modern Europe and should be described as such. Anyone developing music from whatever nationality be it American, Australian, Canadian, or Japanese or Chinese for that matter is still creating music that was based on the traditions of EUROPE. Saying that the tradition is European doesn't mean only European have developed it or create music based on that tradition. It only means the tradition is based on foundations almost entirely DEVELOPED IN EUROPE not the "West" as a whole. Nayra 03:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this very article, "classical music" is "a broad, somewhat imprecise term." "European tradition" is not appropriate when there is a more encompassing term available that has been used before for other arts. And if you want to bring up Western music, even there, the authors (I did not ever edit that page) have chosen the terms "Western classical music" and "musical genres in the Western tradition." Wangry 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think I can speak for the congregation here when I say that it's OK to mention in the article that the bulk of the classical canon comes from Europe, even when using the term "Western" to describe it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would opt for describing the tradition as European. The structures of harmony, counterpint, modality, etc that characterise classical music were developed in Europe. The notation was developed in Europe. The instrumentation associated with classical music is rooted in Europe. This has been built on outside Europe (not just in Western countries) but the tradition is surely a European one. I think "western" can mean several things. If it is a geographical term then it would presumably exclude Australia. However, if it is taken as a cultural one, meaning "countries deriving from a European cultural tradition" then surely it is just a less clear way of referring to the same European tradition. Bluewave 09:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Much of what you say as being developed in Europe can apply to jazz. Many of the traditional jazz instruments were developed in Europe as well as the notation and even music theory. Indeed, if you look at the jazz article, it states that jazz is "born out of a blend of African American musical styles with Western music technique and theory," not European. I would argue again that using the term Western is not meant as a "less clear way of referring to the same European tradition" but rather a more encompassing one. Wangry 02:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources needed

(The following paragraph is just one example among many:)

"The term classical music did not appear until the early 19th century, in an attempt to "canonize" the period from Bach to Beethoven as an era in music parallel to the golden age of sculpture, architecture and art of classical antiquity (from which no music has directly survived). The earliest reference to "classical music" recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary is from about 1836. Since that time the term has come in common parlance to mean the opposite of popular music."

There is much supposedly 'factual' information here, but it all need to be referenced! The statement on the Oxford Dictionary is terrible: "from about 1836", if I'd written this in an essay I'd have failed! I suggest all three of these sentences need to cite a source, due to the nature of their claims. The academic music world is extremely rigorous and scrutinizing, and when this article comes up no. 3 on the google results for classical music, it's embarrassing that there are only two references cited on the whole page!! Matt.kaner 03:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That being the case, please stick in the {{fact}} template whereever you think it's needed. (It expands to ). +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Diference Between Complexity And Difficulty

This article states that classical music is the most complex type of music, or very complex. This is completley biased and just wrong. While much of classical is difficult the average jazz or tech metal piece is far far more complex rythmically, melodically and harmonically than the average classical piece. While many pieces for example on the piano are very difficult to play their complexity is limitted to modulation and the use of harmony. Jazz can for example employs modulation over every chord change and uses chords that are never found in many classical pieces. Jazz also makes use of improvisation something not found in today's classical which makes a Jazz pianist really a composer and musician and not just the human equivalent of a player piano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.210.130 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

New "infobox" seems unsuitable

What's up with that new infobox someone installed? The thing I hate most about it is that it always displays an item labeled "Mainstream popularity" no matter which parameters are given. What's the purpose of this thing? Can we get rid of it? Yesterday? +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, can we please remove it? It's impossible to jam the subtlety and complexity of the "cultural" and "stylistic" origins of 2,000 years of music history into an infobox designed for popular music genres. Origins, 15th century? "Traditional music?" "Classical instruments"? This is unencyclopedic, aside from being inaccurate and misleading. Out please. Thanks for the effort to put it in, but it's inappropriate. Antandrus (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As they say in Hungary, kösönöm szépen. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Complexity

ILike2BeAnonymous thought my addition of {{Fact}} tags to this section was unnecessary, that some how the claims in this paragraph were self-evident. I would just like to take the opportunity to explain therefore why this paragraph is in DIRE need of more information and (along with much of the article) is factually inaccurate and above all misleading.

"Classical works often display great musical complexity through the composer's use of development, modulation (changing of keys), variation rather than exact repetition, musical phrases that are not of even length, counterpoint, polyphony and sophisticated harmony. Larger-scale classical works (such as symphonies, concertos, operas and oratorios) are built up from a hierarchy of smaller units: namely phrases, periods, sections, and movements. Musical analysis often seeks to distinguish and explain these structural levels."

"Classical works often display great musical complexity." This statemment is too broad to be of any meaning whatsoever. Whose works are we talking about? Satie's (whose works often display great simplicity)?

"through the composer's use of development, modulation (changing of keys), variation rather than exact repetition, musical phrases that are not of even length, counterpoint, polyphony and sophisticated harmony"

None of these things can simply be said to create complexity in classical works, and if you believe that it is a valid claim, a source is need, because it is deduction that implies POV. I can find you (easily) works by Britney Spears that contain modulation, variation rather than straight repetition of the melody, counterpoint/polyphony and even at push sophisticated harmonies here and there. I would also add that some of the most "complex works" by Pierre Boulez contain very few of these characteristics.

"Larger-scale classical works (such as symphonies, concertos, operas and oratorios) are built up from a hierarchy of smaller units: namely phrases, periods, sections, and movements"

This is an ANALYTICAL claim and a gross oversimplication. The use of the terms 'phrases', 'periods' etc is highly specialised and refers to Schoenbergian analysis in particular. It must be expanded, or at least more accurately put and referenced. Otherwise the statement is meaningless. The notion that they are self-evident is nonsensical and clearly displays the interference of a point of view. These things are never considered to be givens in modern musicological settings - theory pertaining to musical unity etc. is under great debate nowadays, and has been since about 1950.

"Musical analysis often seeks to distinguish and explain these structural levels." This is ok. But does it belong in a paragraph entitled 'Complexity'? How about 'analytical theory'?

As a music student I would like to take the opportunity to say that this article is abysmal, and I'm sorry to rant like this, but unless this people recognise the need for references (which are all readily available) for an article such as this one it will never improve. Referencing is not something you do just because it looks good - it is the only accepted way of making statement that you hold to be fact in an article, particularly one that serves to give definitions of a topic and its related issues.

Matt.kaner 15:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Impressionist Music

This is not a widely accepted term, particularly because Debussy himself was very opposed to it. French Music of this era can however be described as modernist, in its breaking with romantic tradition, exploration of new sounds and pitch structures etc. It also had arguably, just as much effect on the music of the 20th century that followed as Stravinsky's and Schoenberg's music. Therefore I propose it is removed. Of course it is an 'area' of music that exists, but in an article like this it would better go under Modernism and be mentioned as an aspect thereof. Matt.kaner 11:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Heavy metal" section

I removed this section because it basically had nothing to do with actual classical music. As written, the section alluded to heavy-metal pieces which sounded "classical", but not to any actual classical pieces. Besides, it was completely unreferenced. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Linked from the BBC

This page has been linked from BBC radio4 Tim Vickers 00:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Strengthening an important article.

I would like to make some changes to this article to help its flow and make it more informative for people without detailed knowledge of classical music. I will start by trying to strengthen each of the sections of the timeline. I think that they need to make reference to composers and seminal works of each period. Then perhaps they can become subheadings in the TOC. I think this is important as any book giving even a cursory description of classical music will usually break it up in this manner. Then, I will to work on a brief theoretical overview that tries to explain the development of classical music from the Medieval to the Modern. Neiler 04:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Schoolproject

Hey, Im a 15 year old student from Sweden. We recently got a musicassignment where you got a genre to write about. My group wanted 'History of Rap' but ended up with Classical Music. This is because our teacher is a feminist and never let guys get thier way. Any idea how I (who prefer rap) could find anything intrested in Classical Music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.188.125 (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Composers "timeline" needs fixing

I just did some editing around this section of the article and realized something: this "timeline" looks horrible. The legend text overwrites the timeline dates at the bottom, which are completely illegible in any case; all the text looks very ragged and "pixelated", and the whole thing just looks very amateurish (and not in the good, true sense of that word!). What can be done to fix this?

The graphic appears to be generated by the <timeline> tag. Is there some other way to generate this? Or should it be done in a dedicated graphic image? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's pretty bad. Plus who in their right mind would describe Bartok as belonging to the romantic era?Matt.kaner (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't just look horrible, but whoever chose the composers? Surely they should include the major figures from each era. Machaut and Dufay should be inserted into the huge gap between 1250 and 1450. The 20th century is weird. How can one exclude major figures such as Shostakovich and Messaien while including minor composers such as Satie, Vierne and Varese? And was Prokofieff the last "Modern" composer? Of course not. Apart from the two I've mentioned, we have Henze, Birtwistle, Schnittke, Ades and lots of others. 20th century opera doesn't get much of a showing: if they did, you'd include Berg (surely much more deserving than Satie!), Janacek and Britten. There are too many minimalists, considering that this is a style pursued by a small minority of composers mostly in the US rather than being the dominant 21st century style implied by the graph. To my European eyes, the other US selections are strange. How can Varese be there rather than Ives? And Carter has a stronger international reputation than Crumb. Of course it's easy to argue about who is or is not a major composer, but a test I would apply is the following: if it were that composer's centenary, would you expect to see many celebratory events in more than one country? Shostakovich, Messiaen and Carter pass this test, while the likes of Satie fail. 79.66.27.225 (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was bold and removed Satie and Varese and added Ives. I have never heard of Vierne, so I didn't remove him.

Also, can we prune the Romantic period composers down? There are currently 31 of them on the timeline, more than any other period. I realize that there would naturally be more for the Romantic period (Classical.net lists more Romantic composers than any other era as well), but this timeline is just stuffed to the gill, and I don't imagine that it would be useful to a layperson.

On pruning: I have never heard of Donizetti, and I believe that Offenbach and Saint-Saens are pretty minor as well. Does anyone else agree that we can remove them? Squandermania (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Donizetti is another opera composer, but for some reason virtually all the 19th century opera composers get included but virtually none from the 20th century! I would remove Paganini (what on earth is he doing there?), Weber, czerny, Donizetti, Offenbach, Franck, Smetana, Saint-Saens, Bizet and Bruch. Some of these have written important works, but I agree we have far too many from the 19th century. The 20th century is improving, but I'd remove Vierne and Partch (neither international figures) and add Messaien, Janacek and Britten (the last two justified by their contributions to opera). Maybe Berg too. Galltywenallt (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Classical music = staff notation?

European classical music is largely distinguished from many other non-European and popular musical forms by its system of staff notation, in use since about the 16th century...

This surely needs rewording, but at the moment I can't see how to do it. On the one hand, staff notation began to be developed well before the period of classical music, except in the broadest use of the word "classical." On the other hand, the sheet music that was big business in the early 1900s, the popular songs of everyone from Stephen Foster to Carrie Jacobs-Bond to Irving Berlin to Lieber and Stoller, the piano rags of Scott Joplin, the orchestra-pit arrangements of every Broadway musical... cannot possibly be called "classical music," but use the same system of staff notation. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Characteristics" section is a pure, unreferenced personal essay, start to finish

There's not a single reference in the whole section. Much of it is semireasonable, much of it is very questionable. To pick one point at random:

Classical and popular music are often distinguished by their choice of instruments. There are few if any genres in which so many different instruments are used simultaneously by performing groups such as symphony orchestras...

This is ludicrous. The orchestras of the Baroque period... even Mozart's... weren't much larger than Benny Goodman's band.

And what is a string quartet? Chopped liver?

If it's the choice of instruments that matters, what's the difference between Glenn Gould playing solo piano and Erroll Garner playing solo piano?

How does this go, exactly? Glenn Gould playing solo is classical, because he's playing Bach, who is considered a classical composer, because he also composed pieces for big symphony orchestras... except, of course, that he didn't.

Any marching band, and the United States Marine Band, is about as large and has about as many kinds of instruments in it as a symphony orchestra. Does that make a Sousa march classical music? Even though it's notated using staff notation? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Classical music radio is available.

But, here is the short list of cities that has no access to classical music radio stations.

Sarasota, Florida Atlantic City, New Jersey Greencastle, Indiana Hilo, Hawaii Morehead, Kentucky Grand Rapids, Michigan Greenville, South Carolina Walla Walla, Washington Vancouver, British Columbia

--4.188.66.188 (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

HOW TO DEFINE CLASSICAL MUSIC

Classification of classical music into Baroque , Classical , Romantic and modern classical , is arbitrary and does not give a valuable definition that would allow an ignorant person to distinguish Classical music , when listening to it , from other kind of music such as rock music , country music , folk music and so on . The peculiar characteristic of classical music , whether Baroque , Romantic or Modern, is the fact that it is made of Synphonies .The etimology of this word goes a long way in explaining what Classical music is . It comes from greek SUN-PHONOS that is play together . This does not refer to many instruments being played at the same time but means instead more than one musical motiv being played at the same time . When we listen to a synphony , we can detect a leading motiv and underneath a second and a third motiv that will replace the first one when it fades away . Classical music is therefore a composite music with many layers slowly coming to surface one by one , but always present and detectable. That is why the person writing classical music is called Composer, exactly because he is building a composite musical structure . Now a days the word Composer is given , but wrongly so , to any person writing any kinf of music . Due to the complexity of the classical musical structure , in order to fully appreciate a synphony , it is necessary to listen to it many times so that leading and second , thrid layer motives can be first detected and then fully savoured. In this reality , it is clear that operas are a kind of second class classical music where listener attention is disturbed by , however beautifull, human voice playing the primadonna among the various instruments .

G.A.Castiglioni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.0.217.107 (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)